Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North Western Railway Companies Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 30th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

Sir J. D. REES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House any information regarding the inquiry into Indian railway management to which Sir Arthur Anderson recently referred in the Legislative Council of India?

The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Secretary of State proposes that as soon as is convenient after the end of the War there shall be an inquiry in India as to the desirability or otherwise on administrative and financial grounds of modifying the present management of the railways in that country, which are owned by the State but are worked by companies domiciled in England, either by incorporating the lines in one or other of the existing State-worked systems, or by converting them into separate State-worked lines, or by making them over to companies domiciled in India?

Sir J. D. REES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Lord South-borough's Reports have been received; and, if so, whether copies thereof will be made available for Members of Parliament?

Mr. FISHER: The Reports of the two Committees over which Lord Southborough presided have been presented to the Government of India in accordance with the terms of reference, but have not yet been received from that Government. The Secretary of State hopes to receive both Reports in the course of the month and will present them to Parliament without delay.

PUBLIC SERVANTS (PASSAGES).

Sir J. D. REES: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the provision of passages for public servants and their families from India to the United Kingdom is entirely controlled by the Minister of Shipping; and, if so, whether that officer is making arrangements to relieve the present congestion to provide passages and to reduce fares?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to answer this question. The provision of passages in such cases as those referred to is controlled by the Minister of Shipping acting in conjunction with the other Departments concerned. Everything possible is being done consistent with other urgent requirements to relieve the existing congestion. No further reduction of fares can, I fear, be looked for.

Sir A. FELL: Is it the fact that some of these people will not be able to get passages before the hot weather?

Colonel WILSON: As I stated in the reply, there is considerable congestion at the present time, but it is hoped that that congestion will be relieved considerably in the near future with regard to passages.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS UNIFORMS (PRICES).

Colonel YATE: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the prices charged by tailors for naval officers' uniforms are in any way controlled; and, if not, what steps have been taken to enable naval officers to obtain uniforms as nearly as possible at cost price, especially considering the recent orders requiring all young officers to provide themselves with mess dress?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Government control of these prices has been in force up to the 31st March, as a necessary part of a scheme for ensuring that makers of naval officers' uniform should obtain adequate supplies of Government controlled material.
The Government control having been removed from wool as from the above date, the arrangements for controlling the prices of materials for naval officers' uniforms also come to an end. No orders have been issued requiring officers to provide themselves with mess dress, which is a more expensive uniform than mess undress.
During the War officers were only required to wear undress uniform, but it is now desirable that they should also wear mess undress. It should be noted that this order only applies to officers of the permanent Navy, and that all those in the Navy prior to the commencement of hostilities were already in possession of mess undress.

Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the midshipman who has been appointed during the War has to wear this uniform, and what arrangement has been made for him to get it at a reasonable price?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume that the midshipman appointed during the War has not got mess undress. As regards arrangements for getting it, I have tried to answer in my reply, and I cannot go beyond that.

ADMIRALTY STAFF.

Major O'NEILL: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what reduction in the numbers of the staff and employés, male and female, in the Admiralty has taken place since 11th November, 1918?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of civilian staff (excluding messengers and charwomen) employed by the Admiralty has decreased from 8,062 to 7,467, a net reduction of 595.
The gross reduction was 1,039, but against this must be set an addition of 444 in the Departments and branches of the Admiralty which have to deal with demobilisation and reconstruction problems, with payment of war gratuities, preparation of records of service for the purpose of prize money distribution, increases in children's allowances, and other matters.

Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication when those reconstruction improvements will be completed, and when there may be a further material reduction in this respect?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer as to the first part of the question, and as regards the second part we are doing all we can to see that the staff is not more than is required, but we have many urgent problems before the Board, and I think the staff are over-worked.

Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if all those who are there are fully employed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Whenever I have seen them they are more than fully employed.

NAVAL MARCH (LONDON).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Government with regard to setting apart a day for a march through London of a representative number of officers and men of the Royal Navy, including representatives of the Mercantile Marine, mine sweepers, patrol boats, the late Royal Naval Air Service, and of all other sections of naval officers and men who have served their country in the War, either ashore or afloat?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This matter is still under consideration.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is the same reply as that given to me a fortnight ago, and having regard to the immediate interest taken throughout the country in this matter will the right hon. Gentleman mention some day when he will be able to give a more definite reply?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I appreciate the interest which is taken in this matter. It is true that the First Lord gave an answer that the matter was still under consideration and that remains true. I will give my hon. Friend the earliest notification of the occasion upon which either the First Lord or myself can carry the matter further and when there is some further development.

Mr. JOHN JONES: Why not provide work and not processions for workmen?

COMMANDS (COMPOSITION).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been arrived at as regards the composition of the following commands: the Atlantic, Home, China, Cape, South America, East Indies, and West Atlantic stations; and can he state under whose command these squadrons will be placed in cases where the command has been decided?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I can only refer my Noble and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 12th March relative to the provisional composition of the Mediterranean Squadron, in which I explained that the disposition, composition, and names of other fleets and squadrons has been settled provisionally, but as the eventual disposition and strength of units both in home waters and abroad must be dependent in many respects on the Peace settlement, the present provisional arrangement is liable to revision, and it would be misleading to make it public at present.
Admiral Sir Charles Madden will be in Chief Command of the Home and Atlantic Fleets. The command of squadrons abroad can only be finally determined upon when the strength at which those squadrons are to be maintained is fixed.

PRIZE MONEY DISTRIBUTION.

Viscount CURZON: 9.
asked whether any estimate of the total amount of prize money available for distribution to the officers and men of the Royal Navy can now be given, and if these figures will represent the total amount realised during the War; if any legal costs will be, or have been, deducted from the total sum; if so, how much; and also what proportion it is estimated will be divided between officers and men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is impossible to frame any estimate of the amount likely to be available for distribution. There are still cases to be heard in the Prize Courts, apart from appeals. The Admiralty recently stated in Weekly Orders to the Fleet that, so far as can be seen at present, it is doubtful whether the value of one share will be much more than £1 or £1 10s. And I am afraid we cannot go further than that.
As regards legal charges against the fund, the Noble Lord is no doubt aware
that paragraph 1 of Part 2 of the Schedule to the Naval Prize Act of 1918, which deals with charges on the Naval Prize Fund, is designed to relieve the fund of legal expenses which in the past have been a heavy charge against the captors. As regards the last part of the question, it is estimated that 23½ per cent. of the fund distributed will go to commissioned and warrant officer ranks and 76½ per cent. to the ratings.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the sum which is actually available for distribution at present?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the very question I have tried to answer in the early part of the reply.

WOMEN'S ROYAL NAVAL SERVICE.

Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any decision has been reached with regard to the future of the Women's Royal Naval Service?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The decision is that the Women's Royal Naval Service is to be demobilised as the requirements of the Naval Service permit.

MERCHANT SHIP NEW CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. DONALD: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions have been issued to' private shipbuilding yards not to proceed further with Government work now in course of construction; and whether, if this is so, instructions will be given to have the building slips now occupied by such uncompleted work cleared at the earliest moment in order that they may be utilised for the construction of new merchant ships, which are urgently needed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; such instructions have been issued in regard to certain vessels, and the contractors have been told to press on with work on merchant ship new construction.

NAVAL REVIEW.

Mr. GILBERT: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider if an exhibition of naval ships of all kinds can be arranged on the Thames during the forthcoming summer months, so that the capital of the Empire may see some of the men and the ships which have done so much to protect this country during the War?

Captain MARTIN: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will allocate a large portion of the Fleet to the Thames in connection with the prospective review?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No arrangements have yet been made for a naval review. Many of the ships of the Grand Fleet and of the other naval forces which have been employed in home waters during the War have been placed in Reserve. Many others have had their complements completed with crews drawn from the Permanent Service, and have been sent abroad to relieve other ships in order that the crews of these ships may be demobilised. The programme of such ships of the Grand Fleet as remain in commission at home has not yet been arranged, and must depend largely on the course of events at the Peace Conference. When the programme of these ships is arranged, my hon. Friends may feel assured that the claims of the Thames, which have already been advanced by the Lord Mayor of London to a visit from men-of-war, will receive full consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MERCANTILE MARINE RESERVE.

Mr. CROOKS: 15.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that men who volunteered for the Mercantile Marine Reserve worked under naval discipline and were engaged in such work as mine-laying, he will consider the possibility of these men being awarded the gratuity as in the case of Service men?

Dr. MACNAMARMA: In view of the special nature of their emoluments, it is not proposed to issue to men of the Mercantile Marine Reserve the naval war gratuity awarded to men who received naval rates of pay.

Mr. J. JONES: Is he aware that numbers of these men have been torpedoed four and five times, and have made as much sacrifice as any other section of the community?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We are all very grateful to them, and fully aware of the sacrifices made by these men, but I would like to send my hon. Friend a reasoned statement of the decision which I have announced.

Mr. J. JONES: They were under naval discipline.

DRIFTER CREWS.

Mr. CHARLES BARRIE: 16.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the crews of drifters in attendance on the Grand Fleet as tenders in 1914, and which may have been transferred at a later date to another section of the Admiralty service, are considered as having served since 1914 and entitled to gratuity from that date?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If the men referred to belonged to the active service or Reserves and were paid naval rates of pay during the service in question, they would be entitled to count such service for war gratuity under the regulated conditions, irrespective of the duty on which they were engaged.

DEMOBILISED SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS.

Major BIRCHALL: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any allowance can be made in cases of necessity to the dependants of demobilised soldiers who are residing at training schools or universities and being trained with a view to ordination?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): The Government scheme of assistance for ex-Service students already includes allowances in respect of children.

COMMUNICATIONS BY LETTER (DELAY).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 89.
asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to a letter to him from the hon. Member for the Consett Division, dated 20th February, 1919; whether five weeks later, namely, on the 27th March, a communication was sent from his Minis try saying, that that letter had been for warded to the Superintendent of the Pensions Issue Office; and will he say for what reason it takes five weeks to for ward a letter from one branch of his Ministry to another?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The facts stated in the question have not enabled me to trace this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me the name and regimental particulars of the man on whose behalf he wrote.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 90.
asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Joseph Ward.
No. 250069. 6th Durham Light Infantry, about which the hon. Member for Consett wrote to the then Pensions Minister on the 6th December last; whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Consett reminded him on the 22nd January, in a letter which was acknowledged on the 24th February, saying that the appeal was in the hands of the local committee; and what are the reasons why it takes nearly four months to deal with a matter of this sort?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret the exceptional delay in dealing with this case, for which, however, the Department was not wholly responsible. A letter has now been written to the hon. Member announcing the satisfactory settlement of the case.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (IRELAND).

Mr. DEVLIN: 91.
asked the Pensions Minister the number of demobilised men in Belfast who have claimed impairment of their health due to or aggravated by War service and the number whose claims have been admitted; whether he is aware that no arrangements have been made by the Ministry for general practitioner's treatment of these men, who, unlike the similar class in Great Britain, are compelled to pay for treatment themselves or to seek treatment from the Poor Law dispensary medical officer or in the Belfast Workhouse hospital; whether he will state the number of impaired men at present receiving treatment in the Belfast Workhouse hospital; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing amongst this class of demobilised men in Ireland because of the absence of facilities for home treatment, and whether he is now in a position to state when adequate arrangements for such treatment will be made for the whole country?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am endeavouring to obtain the information asked for in the first and third parts of the question. As the hon. Member is aware, the question of granting general practitioner treatment to demobilised men in Ireland who have suffered impairment in the War has engaged my attention, and the matter is now before the Treasury. I hope a decision will soon be reached.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain how it is that arrangements have been made for treat-
ing English soldiers, and that you are only now considering how Irish soldiers should be treated; and what is the reason of the Treasury putting obstacles in the way in Ireland when they have allowed this matter to be settled in England?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As my hon. Friend is fully aware, facilities for treatment in Ireland and in England have been different for some time, and I am now trying to extend to Ireland the facilities that exist in England.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give guarantees that the same treatment, whether facilities be different or not, will be meted out to Irish soldiers as to soldiers in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope my answer will convince the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is precisely what I am trying to arrange.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have brought this matter several times before the House during the last six weeks, and what is the meaning of the delay? Is it another Treasury trick?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the hon. Member had better wait another few days, and then he will find there is no Treasury trick.

Mr. DEVLIN: How many more days? We cannot go on waiting while the Treasury is making up its mind.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Member put a question down again next week?

Mr. DEVLIN: Certainly—the very first day I can get a chance.

OUT-OF-WORK DONATIONS.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Returns of unemployed persons in receipt of out-of-work donation are analysed with a view to detecting any marked excess in the supply of those skilled in any particular industry, having regard to the probable eventual demand for skilled labour in that industry; and, if so, what, if any, steps are being taken to divert such labour into other channels of employment instead of continuing to pay out-of-work donation?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid it would be impossible to make such an analysis as is suggested, in view of the fact that the probable eventual demand for labour in any given industry could not be even approximately estimated. I may add, however, that the Returns of persons in receipt of out-of-work donation are regularly scrutinised with a view to ensuring that all possible steps are taken to utilise unemployed labour for filling vacancies which are at the time known to exist.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any representations from trade unions in favour of the substitution of Clause 8 of the out-of-work donation scheme by a provision that any worker offered employment in another district where wages are lower shall be guaranteed the district rate of his place of residence; and whether he will consider this matter?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The rule is based upon the corresponding rule in Section 86 (c) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1911; and I do not see my way to altering it.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether married women with children are being offered domestic service by the Labour Exchanges without the opportunity of returning to their homes in the evenings; and whether unemployment benefit is being refused to those who decline to take such work?

Sir R. HORNE: It is the duty of Employment Exchanges to offer suitable employment wherever possible to all women who claim out-of-work donation. The domestic circumstances of applicants are in all cases taken fully into account before unemployment donation is refused; and, further, all suspensions of donation are referred to a Court of Referees, before whom the applicant is entitled to attend and state his or her case. I am not aware of any particular instances raising the point contained in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. JOHN JONES: Is he prepared to allow these appeals to be made to the local advisory committees before they are finally sent to the Central Committee?

Sir R. HORNE: No; I do not think I am prepared to give that assurance. The present system has been devised as being the best possible under the circumstances.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the circumstances set out in my question?

Sir R. HORNE: In every case it is the duty of the Employment Exchanges to consider such circumstances as the hon. Member mentions, and if they are unsatisfactory to the applicants it is then the duty of the Court of Referees to deal with it.

Sir F. BANBURY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state what Act and what Vote authorises the payment of money to unemployed persons until November next?

Sir R. HORNE: Moneys required for out-of-work donation are provided in the Vote for the Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement Department. Parliament will be asked in due course to confirm this Vote in the Appropriation Act. No other statutory authority is being sought.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I to understand from that answer that the money has been spent before either a Vote or an Act has been obtained?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I am not sufficiently familiar with the forms of this. House to be able to answer that question, but if the hon. Member will put it before me in a subsequent question I shall be glad to answer it.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the habit of the Government not to know when they spend money whether they are authorised to do so or not?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think it is the habit of the Government; it is only my own personal ignorance on this question.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the legality of these payments?

Mr. JOHN JONES: Have the unemployed been consulted?

Lieutenant-Colonel HILDER: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of men in England classified as agricultural labourers who received out-of-work donations for the second week in March?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of men in England classified as agricultural labourers who received out-of-work donation for the second week in March was 2,352.

Lieutenant-Colonel HILDER: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of agricultural labourers in England in receipt of out-of-work donations who obtained employment through the Employment Exchange during the second week in March?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of agricultural labourers (men) in England who obtained employment through the Employment Exchanges during the second week in March was 119.
I should like to add to the three answers which I have just given that the men submitted for employment are very frequently refused, and the fact that a man represents himself as an agricultural labourer is no guarantee that he has sufficient skill to induce the employer to take him on.

Lieutenant-Colonel HILDER: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of painters and the number of bricklayers of all grades who were in receipt of out-of-work donations during the second week in March?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of painters and painters' labourers who were in receipt of out-of-work donation during the second week in March was 9,804. The number of bricklayers and bricklayers' labourers who were in receipt of out-of-work donation during the second week in March was 7,884.

Lieutenant-Colonel HILDER: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme difficulty in the country of obtaining this kind of labour?

Mr. J. JONES: Is he aware also of the difficulty of these men in finding employment?

Mr. DONALD: Is he aware that in Ireland they are coming for their out-of-work donation in motor-cars?

Mr. JONES: Can he say if they are not entitled to a ride sometimes?

FLAX GROWING (BRITISH EAST AFRICA).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether steps are being taken by his Department to facilitate the scheme for forming a colony of ex-Service men desirous of developing the
flax-growing industry in British East Africa put forward on behalf of the Empire Flax-growing Committee by Lieutenant-Colonel Hughes-Ridge; and whether he is aware that land for the purpose of this colony has already been ear-marked by the governor of East Africa, and that a number of ex-Service men are anxious to take part in the formation of this colony and are anxiously awaiting the decision of the outstanding points in connection with it by the Ministry of Labour?

Sir R. HORNE: As regards the first half of this question, this scheme is under consideration. It involves the grant of a considerable sum of money by the State, and expert advice is being obtained on the possibilities of success: The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

SALFORD UNION OFFICERS (WAR BONUS).

Mr. TOOTILL: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the guardians of the Salford Union have again refused to pay their officers the Civil Service scale of war bonus and have decided not to submit the disputed matter to arbitration; and whether he will state what course the officers should take to enable them to obtain the award of war bonus sanctioned by the Local Government Board in their circular letter to boards of guardians?

Sir R. HORNE: I am informed that the guardians of the Salford Union have not yet come to a decision on the question of submitting this matter to arbitration, but are meeting on the 4th instant to consider the Report of the Committee to which the question was referred. In these circumstances the second part of the question does not arise.

Mr. TOOTILL: 88.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the guardians of the Salford Union have again refused to pay to their workpeople the Civil Service scale of war bonuses; whether he is also aware that the persistent refusal of the guardians to grant their officers' claims is causing widespread disaffection in the Union, and may result in drastic action being resorted to unless immediate steps are taken to remedy the grievances; and whether the
Board will now exercise the power conferred upon them by Section 46, c. 76, of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, which gives the Board power to regulate the amount of salaries payable to officers employed by boards of guardians?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): My right hon. Friend has not yet been informed by the Salford guardians of the result of the further consideration given by them to the subject. The powers of the Local Government Board under Section 46 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, even if they could properly be exercised in the manner which the hon. Member presumably has in view, would not meet the case, as they do not extend to the salaries of more than a limited portion of the guardians' staff.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.

Lieutenant-Colonel HILDER: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the total number of applications in England for agricultural labourers by employers during the second week in March?

Sir R. HORNE: The total number of applications made to Employment Exchanges in England for agricultural labourers (men) by employers during the second week in March was 401.

ACTORS' UNION.

Mr. JESSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the threat of Mr. C. B. Cochran, theatrical manager, to lock out all actors and actresses who belong to the Actors' Union; whether he is aware that the Actors' Union was formed for the purpose of improving the terms and conditions of employment for actors and actresses; and whether he can see his way to take action, in the interests of all connected with dramatic art, and offer the services of his Department to remove any cause of friction which may lead to a dispute involving the trade unions representing the actors, musicians, and employ½s?

Sir R. HORNE: No complaint of the nature referred to has been received by the Ministry of Labour. Inquiry is being made into the matter.

CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received copies of resolutions adopted at the Ceylon National Conference, held in December, 1918, reaffirming the demands for constitutional reform submitted to the Imperial Government in June, 1917, and on several subsequent occasions; and, if so, when His Majesty's Government proposes to consider this question and grant the people of Ceylon some measure of self-government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): The Secretary of State has received copies of the resolutions in question. He proposes to await the considered views of the Governor of Ceylon before forming any conclusions in the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend endeavour to see that delay here does not cause the Colonial Office the same trouble that the Foreign Office had in an exactly parallel case in Egypt?

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Mr. SITCH: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the chairman of the British South Africa Company, addressing the shareholders of the company in August last, stated that in the company's opinion the Imperial Government was their very solvent debtor, that the claim they would make already exceeded £10,000,000 sterling, and that the company would at the earliest possible moment attempt to agree to the amount of the claim with the Government; whether such claim has yet been lodged; and whether, before any such agreement is reached, he will be willing to lay papers covering the claim upon the Table of the House?

Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I have seen the statement referred to. The British South Africa Company have approached the Secretary of State with regard to obtaining a settlement of the amount of the company's administrative deficits in Southern Rhodesia, and the whole question is now under consideration.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether, in granting to the South Africa Company a Royal Charter, His Majesty's Government expressly retained a power to revoke that Charter upon evidence being produced that the company has substantially failed to observe and conform to the provisions of the Charter?

Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir.

MATABELELAND.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state at what period, if at all, His Majesty's Government became aware of the fact that Sir Starr Jameson, without the knowledge of the High Commissioner of South Africa, had secretly agreed to give the men who followed him into Matabeleland in 1893 a total of 4,000,000 acres of native land and other rewards of a total potential value exceeding £6,000,000; and whether he can say what, if any, action was taken by the Government of the day when this fact came to their knowledge?

Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: The question was raised in Parliament at the time, and I would refer my hon. Friend to Mr. Buxton's statement in the House of Commons on the 27th November, 1893.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the British taxpayer is not involved in indefinite liabilities in connection with Rhodesia without this House having been consulted?

TROOPS (LOCAL RECEPTIONS).

Mr. RENWICK: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it can be arranged to have a march through the streets of Newcastle of as many as possible of the various battalions of Northumberland Fusiliers on St. George's Day, 23rd April, that day being a holiday on Tyne-side and St. George being the patron saint of the Northumberland Fusiliers?

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the splendid record of the Northumberland Fusiliers, including the locally raised and trained Tyneside Irish, Tyneside Scottish, and Chamber of Commerce Brigades, which were specially
inspected and complimented by His Majesty the King and Lord Kitchener before being taken over by the War Office, he will see his way to sanction a public march through the streets of Newcastle-upon-Tyne on St. George's Day, St. George being the patron saint of the regiment, of such of the battalions as are available?

Captain GUEST: (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The question of local receptions of troops is being discussed with the county and other authorities concerned, and I hope to make a statement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Major HENDERSON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men of the Royal Air Force are being offered early demobilisation provided they accept a scheme of deferred payment; if he will state when this scheme was introduced; and whether he is aware that this system lays itself open, to the argument that a man must accept the scheme, whether he likes it or not, unless he wishes his demobilisation to be delayed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I am aware of this scheme referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. It was introduced about the end of January last solely with the object of suiting the convenience of men who were in a hurry to take up jobs in civil life. It has the effect of enabling men who voluntarily adopt it to be demobilised more speedily than would otherwise be possible. No man who refuses to accept the scheme loses his turn for ordinary demobilisation, which goes on continuously at a fixed rate. I may add that the adoption of the scheme reduces the expenditure incurred. From every point of view the scheme is much to be commended.

DISCHARGED ON ACCOUNT OF WOUNDS.

Mr. RENDALL: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why Private B. C. Hall, No. 306901, 68th Field Bakery, Lucknow Barracks, Tidworth, is not demobilised; whether he is aware that he joined the Army in January, 1915, was discharged as unfit, and was called up in 1916 and posted B 2; whether, under
these circumstances, he is entitled to be treated as having joined before 1st January, 1916; and, as his place in a bakery is being kept for him at great inconvenience by his employer, he will see that this man is now discharged?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If Private Hall actually performed continuous service with the Colours prior to the 1st January, 1916, and was discharged on account of wounds or sickness, he will be eligible for demobilisation. If he is eligible, he will no doubt be demobilised in due course, but must take his turn in the same way as other soldiers who are eligible.

Mr. RENDALL: If the man was discharged unfit before 1916 and then rejoined after 1916, does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as continuous service and entitling the man to his discharge?

An HON. MEMBER: He said so!

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not necessarily; the question is whether the man performed continuous service with the Colours prior to 1916.

Mr. RENDALL: My question was: If the man rejoined after 1916 will he be regarded as a person who joined before 1916 and therefore entitled to demobilisation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It depends on the facts whether he would be liable to service or not.

TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Lieutenant-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALL: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War what are the duties and responsibilities of commanding officers on the active list of the Territorial Force who have been disembodied, in view of the fact that the great majority of the units have now been demobilised or disembodied?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer at the same time Question No. 77. I summoned a meeting of presidents and chairmen of the Territorial Force Associations at Westminster City Hall yesterday to consider the future of the Territorial Force, and I hope a full report of the proceedings of the meeting will be available for publication to-morrow morning.

CIVILIAN CLERKS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 56.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made with
the release of civilian clerks, male and female, temporarily engaged during the War; whether he will issue a weekly, statement of the number of temporary civilian clerks, male and female, released every week; and what is the ratio between the rate of discharge of civilians as compared with the naval and military?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My right hon Friend the Minister of Reconstruction is, at the request of the War Cabinet, looking into this question, and I will consider with him the suggestion made by the hon. Member for a periodic return of the numbers released. No comparison can be made between the rate of discharges of civil staff and of the Forces, as the demobilisation of the Forces itself has thrown an immense burden of work on Departments at home, for which the necessary staff must be retained.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.

Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to prevent undue delay in the demobilisation of men who joined the Colours in 1914–15 or those over age, including those serving in the Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Army Service Corps, and other Departmental units, an inspecting officer of field rank, or over, may be appointed in each theatre of operations to investigate all cases of men who, though eligible by age or service, have not yet been demobilised?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend cannot be entertained. Officers commanding units are in possession of full instructions regulating the demobilisation of personnel under their command, and I am of opinion that they are the most fitted to judge whether it is necessary temporarily to retain men who are otherwise eligible for demobilisation. I would also refer to the answer given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northern Midlothian and Peebles, from which it will be seen that the decisions of officers commanding units must be referred to higher authority in the case of men in certain categories.

Lieutenant-Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the War Officers Commanding hospitals, in particular, were notorious for employing a far larger number of orderlies and fatigue men than was necessary, and if he
does not consider therefore that such officers may now retain an unnecessarily large number of men?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been putting on the greatest possible pressure to accelerate the demobilisation of medical personnel of all ranks.

SOMERSETSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY.

Mr. HURD: 61.
asked whether, in view of the early return of men of the 1/4th Somerset Regiment from the East, and in view, of their long service in distant theatres under severe climatic conditions and without home leave, he can make such arrangements in respect of their demobilisation as will permit of a public welcome being given in Somerset to the returning troops?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The cadres of the 1/4th Somersetshire Light Infantry are under orders to return to the United Kingdom, though it is not yet known definitely when they will arrive. Their destination will be Bath, and the earliest intimation of date and probable time of their arrival will be conveyed to the civic authorities of that city when the time comes.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they have started yet?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not carry that point in my head, but I can easily ascertain, if the hon. Gentleman wishes it.

COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.

Lieutenant-Colonel CAMPION: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of other ranks demobilised to date on compassionate grounds from the British Expeditionary Force and from units serving at home?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of men demobilised by order of the War Office from all fronts on compassionate grounds up to the 31st of March, 1919, is 1,935. It is not possible to say how these are distributed amongst the various forces.

WOMEN'S CORPS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the demobilisation of the various women's corps auxiliary to the Army; whether their demobilisation is being carried on pari passu with that of
the Army; and can a weekly table be issued, similar to that issued as to the Army, to show the rate of their demobilization?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Figures are not readily available, but they are being obtained, and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (GRATUITY).

Major O'NEILL: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Post Office employés who have joined the Colours are entitled to the usual gratuity on demobilisation; and, if not, why such soldiers are being adversely discriminated against?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the Member for Pontypool by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 20th March.

Major O'NEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman give any undertaking that this matter will be reconsidered?

CAPTURED GUNS (DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. RENDALL: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the enemy guns allotted to Lords Lieutenant to distribute in their respective counties fall far short of the number of requests for such guns; and if he is now able, and, if not now, when will he be able, to comply with requests for further guns?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the only captured guns that have been distributed by Lords Lieutenants up to the present are those to which units have substantiated their claims, and which at the wish of the units have been placed at the disposal of the Lords Lieutenant for allocation. A distribution of unclaimed guns will be made as soon as possible.

MILITARY DECORATIONS.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: 42.
asked the Secretary of Stats for War whether he will consider the advisability of giving some decoration to those soldiers of the Old Army who were kept at home, often
against their wishes, to train and instruct the New Armies, and who have rendered such valuable service to their country in the formation of our forces?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Soldiers of the Old Army who were kept at home in the conditions enumerated are eligible for certain rewards, as in the case of all troops on home service. The particular attention of general officers commanding in commands was called to these services, and they were asked to bear them in mind when submitting recommendations for the New Year "Gazette," 1919 (in respect of which all recommendations have now been dealt with), and in lists for the 3rd June "Gazette," 1919, now under consideration.

Mr. GWYNNE: Were any of these soldiers specially brought to the notice of the commanding officers and given a decoration, or do they get one merely as a matter of course?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No; that has already been considered in the "Gazette" and ought to have been published on 1st January. Further cases will be reconsidered before the next list, on 3rd June, is settled.

SOLDIERS' LEAVE.

Mr. RENDALL: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a letter, countersigned by the police superintendent of Bristol, was sent to the War Office stating that the father and sister of Sapper A. W. Hendy, No. W.R. 554331, Royal Engineers, Port Directorate, Marghil, or Tanoomah, Mesopotamia, had died, leaving his mother and two young children, and asking for leave for Sapper Hendy; whether no reply of any kind has been given to this letter; whether a cable to the commanding officer has also been unresponded to; and whether, in the circumstances stated, he will see that leave is granted if discharge of the man cannot be given at once?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that there is no trace of any application regarding this soldier having been received in the War Office. I hope that it may be possible to arrange for Sapper Hendy to be transferred to the home establishment and his discharge on compassionate grounds will then be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BLAGOVESTCHENCK FIGHTING.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether American troops in Siberia refused to co-operate in the fighting near Blagovestchenck against insurrectionary Russians; if so, why they refused; and whether British troops were used for this sort of warfare?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
The reason given by the General Officer Commanding the American troops was that the force which attacked the Japanese troops might prove to be insurrectionary Russian peasants, mistaken for Bolsheviks.
British troops have not been called upon to quell disturbances, but they will cooperate with other forces of the Allies, including American troops, in maintaining order in the areas in which, for the time being, they are stationed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but if there is a difference of opinion as to whether these people are insurrectionary Russians or Bolsheviks between American troops and Japanese troops, can we have an assurance that British troops will cooperate with the Americans and not with the Japanese?

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Because they are white men!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think these matters must be left to the discretion of the officers on the spot. In this particular case there is no doubt that this was a powerful and well-armed band of Bolsheviks.

ALLIED MISSION.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Allied Mission has recently returned from Bolshevist Russia with offers of peace from Lenin's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am not aware of any Allied Mission having been recently in Bolshevist Russia other than a email British Red Cross Mission which has been looking after the interests of our prisoners.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that a member of the Allied Delegation in Paris has not recently returned from Bolshevist Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information to that effect.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to give notice, in view of the hon. Gentleman's answer, that I shall raise this question on the first available opportunity.

RATES OF PAY (OVERTIME).

Major HENDERSON: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War why male civilian subordinates require to perform forty-five hours' work per week before they are qualified for overtime, whilst female civilian subordinates are so qualified after performing forty-two hours' work per week?

Mr. FORSTER: I understand the question to refer to clerical staffs. I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that it is not asking too much to require a slightly longer normal working week from men. The rates paid take account of the hours worked.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMIES OF OCCUPATION.

WOMEN'S PAY.

Major HILLS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has been reached as to the granting of Army of Occupation pay to nurses, members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, and other women employed with the Armies of Occupation; and, if not, when a decision can be expected?

Mr. FORSTER: It is hoped that a decision will be reached shortly.

GOVERNMENT OFFICES (ORGANISATION AND STAFFING.)

Lieutenant-Colonel POWNALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to paragraph 35 of the Fourth Interim Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the organisation and staffing of Government offices, dealing with the limitations, as regards staff, of the Department of
Overseas Trade; whether, in view of the great importance of giving every opportunity for the increase of our overseas trade, he will give facilities for the strengthening of the staff in question; and whether he is yet in a position to say when the Department in question will be properly housed, as suggested in the above-mentioned Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the paragraph in question and also to the subsequent paragraph dealing with the duplication of work between the Department of Overseas Trade and the Board of Trade. Until the latter question is settled satisfactorily I am unable to give a final decision as to the whole staff of the Department of Overseas Trade, but a considerable addition of staff is being allowed in the meantime. I think, speaking from memory, the staff is about 400 at the present time. In the present difficult position with regard to the housing of Government Departments generally, I cannot state definitely when it will be possible to move this Department to more suitable quarters, but the matter is under consideration by the First Commissioner of Works.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether, in view of this admitted overlapping, the War Cabinet cannot pay some attention to this matter, and so prevent further waste of the taxpayers' money?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): We are paying attention to it; we had a long discussion about it yesterday.

Lieutenant-Colonel POWNALL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to publish the Report of the Sub-committee of the Committee appointed to inquire into the organisation and staffing of Government offices, which has recently reported on the Department of Overseas Trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Reports of the inspecting panels appointed by the Committee on Staffs were made to that Committee and formed the subject-matter in respect of which evidence was taken both from the inspectors themselves and representatives of the Departments concerned. The contents of these Reports are very fully summarised in the Committee's own reports, and I do not think that there would be any advantage in publishing the separate reports of the inspecting panels.

FOOTBALL MATCHES (REFRESHMENTS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of large attendances of the public at football matches on Saturday afternoons who desire refreshment before going to the fields where such matches are played, and who have not accommodation in their homes to store supplies, and therefore cannot get any refreshment till four o'clock on these days, he will take steps to afford the same opportunities on Saturdays for the people's refreshment as on other weekdays?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The Central Control Board have no evidence from the districts concerned of any general desire for the change proposed.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these restrictions, which only affect the working classes, cause great irritation and a good deal of labour unrest, and that they believe that they were passed by the first Government to cover their failure to supply munitions?

LAND SETTLEMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether part of the £20,000,000 which it is announced is to be allocated by the Government for the purchase, adaptation, and building of cottages on land to be developed for land settlements for ex-Service men will be apportioned to Scotland, and, if so, how much; and whether he will consider the propriety of departing from the usual proportion in this case and provide a separate and adequate sum for Scottish needs in view of the difference in agricultural conditions in Scotland and the great wish for small holdings?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

MARRIED WOMEN.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Govern-
ment intend to invite Parliament to amend the Married Women's Property Act this Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will it not be necessary to amend the Act if the Inland Revenue authorities are to be allowed to continue to treat a wife's income as part of her husband's income?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If it is necessary it will be done, but I am not aware that it is necessary.

SOLDIERS DEPENDANTS (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Colonel STEPHENSON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the burden now placed on boards of guardians through the cost of relieving the wives and children of men who have deserted from the Army; and whether he will consider the advisability of such costs being borne in whole or in part by the Government?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply to this question. It is not proposed to place this charge upon the taxpayer.

WOMEN WORKERS (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT).

Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 55.
asked whether, in view of the large number of women workers who are drawing unemployment benefit, and taking into consideration the urgent need for wood and light iron work and other materials necessary for their housing policy, the Government will give in the national factories temporary employment of this character to women workers, thus substituting for a wasteful policy one which meets the national necessity of the time?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The policy of the Government as to the use of these factories has already been announced, and I have nothing to add in that respect. I am, however, taking all possible steps to stimulate the employment of women in suitable occupations.

SINN FEIN MOVEMENT.

Mr. LYNN: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of his statement that a Departmental inquiry is the most suitable method for investigating the relations between the Sinn Fein movement and the German enemy and men inciting to disturbances and breaches of contract in dockyards, mines, etc., contrary to the Regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act, he will direct that such Departmental inquiry shall forthwith be made and that the evidence taken and the conclusions arrived at shall be published; if such Departmental inquiry has already taken place, will he without delay publish the conclusions and evidence, only withholding the names of witnesses in cases where the publication of such names might place the said witnesses in danger; and, if not, will he state what means he proposes to take in order to allow the people of the United Kingdom, of the British Empire, and of our Allies in America and Europe to judge as to the character of the Sinn Fein movement and whether it should or should not be regarded by them as having afforded help to the enemy and as being injurious to the interests of the United Kingdom and the British Empire and the cause of the Allies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 27th February.

Captain REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if it is the intention of the Government to institute such an inquiry, he will institute a similar inquiry in regard to the relations existing between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) and the Kaiser before the War, especially in relation to the luncheon party?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I must answer that. I have not said that there is any inquiry, but from my own knowledge all the talk about the relations of my right hon. Friend with the Kaiser is purely without foundation.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it has as much foundation as the German plot?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am sorry to say, nothing like the same foundation.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the one case, we have a distinct statement publicly made
that the right hon. Gentleman lunched with the German Emperor before the War, whereas we have no evidence about the German plot?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say anything about the luncheon. I said it was absolutely untrue that there were any relations of any kind of a political nature between my right hon. Friend and the Kaiser.

Mr. DEVLIN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! This has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question.

SOLDIER'S DEATH (FAILURE TO REPORT).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 59.
asked whether Corporal R. W. Atkinson, No. 65415, 1st Northumberland Fusiliers, died in No. 3 Field Ambulance, France, on 23rd August, 1918; whether his death was not reported to the War Office until February, 1919; and, if so, what was the cause of the delay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that Corporal Atkinson was reported from the base on 2nd September, 1918, as wounded on 23rd August, but his death was not reported. Subsequently a report was received from the Director of Graves Registration and Inquiries that Corporal Atkinson's grave had been located, particulars of the locality being given. This evidence was referred to the base, and an official report then received that Corporal Atkinson had died of his wounds on 23rd August in No. 3 Field Ambulance. I have no doubt that the failure to notify his death at the time was due to the conditions brought about by the very heavy fighting of that period.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was February before the case was reported?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

COURTS-MARTIAL (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Major NALL: 60.
asked the Secretary for War if he will publish the rules under which evidence will be admitted to the Committee inquiring into courts-martial?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will be for the Committee to determine their own procedure in such a matter, and they are by their composition very well qualified to do so.

Major NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the rules are published when the Committee has framed them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If you appoint a very competent Committee, it is always left for the Committee to conduct their inquiry in their own way, and that is the usual course.

Colonel GREIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive the names of gentlemen who are willing to give evidence and who have had special knowledge of this subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I hope all those suggestions will be addressed to the president of the Committee.

SEIGE OF KUT (DISPATCHES)

Colonel YATE: 62.
asked when the dispatches relative to the siege of Kut-el-Amara will be published; and how many military awards have been conferred for services during the siege?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Operations during the siege of Kut were described in the dispatches of Generals Sir John Nixon and Sir Percy Lake, gazetted the 10th May and 12th October, 1916, and it is not intended to publish further dispatches covering this period.
As regards the second part of the question, there are no records to show the total number of awards conferred for services rendered actually during the siege of Kut, but the gazettes of awards for services in connection with operations immediately preceding and inclusive of the siege total 148. This total is exclusive of "immediate" awards, no figures as to these being available.
I may observe that all recommendations at the stage of operations to which my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers were rendered to the Government of India. The Army Council have always given, and are still prepared to give, the most sympathetic consideration to any names brought forward by the Government of India.

Colonel YATE: Are we to understand that not a single award has been conferred for any services rendered during: the siege of Kut?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know how the hon. and gallant Gentleman has reached that conclusion, because I reached an entirely opposite one from studying the answer. The total number of awards was 148.

Colonel YATE: That includes all Mesopotamia. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any one that was given for services rendered during the siege of Kut?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On that point I will make inquiries. I am informed that the awards for services in connection with the operations preceding and including the siege number 148.

WAR-ZONE BATTLEFIELDS.

Viscount CURZON: 63.
asked whether arrangements tan be made for any Members of Parliament to visit the War-zone battlefields and districts likely to become the subject of international discussion in the areas in France and Germany now in the occupation of the Allies during the Easter Recess?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is regretted that there are no funds at the disposal of the War Office which would enable arrangements of this nature to be granted at the public expense. Facilities as regards the issue of permits to visit these areas will, however, be given to Members who are willing to arrange for their own transport and accommodation.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement published in the Press that Members of Parliament propose to go to Germany is true, and has this the sanction of the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not seen any such statement.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proper place for Members of Parliament is on the Standing Committees?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That question should not be addressed to the War Office.

GERMAN PRISONERS (MORTALITY IN FRANCE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 64.
asked whether, in view of the increasing mortality among German prisoners in our hands in France, he will cause inquiry to be made as to the food, shelter, and conditions of the prisoners in the camps where the mortality is highest?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter is receiving careful attention, and the authorities in France are being consulted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will an inquiry be made into the scale of the rations?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. Every care will be taken to ascertain the causes of this increase in the mortality.

MILITARY HOSPITALS.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the New Zealand force have offered to hand over to the War Office three hospitals, each having accommodation for 2,000 beds; and whether he will consider the desirability of closing down small military hospitals, both in the interests of economy and in order that better effect may be given to the scheme of vocational training for civil life among walking patients in hospitals by their concentration in large hospitals?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. No such offer has been received by the War Office from the Dominion authorities. These authorities have, however, been requested to report the dates on which they will be vacating their hospitals in order that the War Office may have an opportunity of stating whether it is desired to take them over or not. The policy now being carried out is to close down the smaller hospitals and concentrate in the larger hospitals. This is being done both in the interests of vocational training and of economy.

BUILDING MATERIALS (BRICKS).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for War if there is a great shortage of bricks in this country, and that there are many obsolete brick forts, notably at Portsmouth, and
that such bricks could be advantageously made use of for building purposes; and if he will see that these supplies of bricks be made use of?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are a number of brick forts at Portsmouth, but as the bricks are set in cement it is not considered that the demolition of these forts, even if such a policy should be decided upon at a future date, would provide many bricks fit for re-use in new buildings, and be a practical financial proposition.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has stated that which is absolutely contrary to the opinion of builders in that part of the world?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not an expert in these matters, but I shall be very glad to place the experts in building from that part of the world in contact with the, experts who have advised me on this question

WAR OFFICE (ROADS BRANCH).

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the duties of the administrative officer of the Roads Branch involve the possession by him of war experience or of technical knowledge of the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The duties of the administrative officer in charge of roads and bridges are, as his title implies, of an administrative rather than of a technical nature. The present administrative officer, who was previous to the War a member of the National Road Board, and during the War deputy to the Controller of Roads and Bridges, is also Deputy-Chairman of the two Committees concerned with roads—the (Joint) Roads Committee and the Road Stone Control Committee—and in these capacities has obtained adequate technical experience for his present post. His staff includes the necessary technical officers, who are members or Associates of the Institute of Civil Engineers selected for pre-war experience in matters pertaining to road administration and repairs.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of officers employed in the Roads
Branch under the Director of Lands on 31st December last, together with the total amount of their salaries; and if he will give the same particulars in respect of the branch as it exists at present?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that no officers were serving in the Roads Branch of the Lands Directorate on the 31st December last as that branch was transferred from the Directorate of Lands and merged in the present establishment before that date. The total salaries of the present establishment, excluding unfit officers temporarily attached, amount to £5,800 a year.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make personal inquiry as to whether the continued expenditure of public money is justified in this Department, which is commonly reported to live upon the work which it makes for itself?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In view of the opinion which my hon. Friend has about it, I will make, personally, inquiry into the matter.

Major PRESCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continuance of this unnecessary Roads Branch is causing much irritation not merely to the Road Board, but also to the county councils and the local authorities generally?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am obliged to my hon. Friends for bringing the matter to my attention. I will make personal inquiry into it, but, on the face of it, the answer is as I have given it.

OSWESTRY DISPERSAL STATION.

Mr. HADYN JONES: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Park Hall Camp, Oswestry, ceased to be a dispersal centre about a month ago; whether it is a fact that the staff of about forty officers are still retained there; and, if so, for what purpose?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oswestry was closed as a, dispersal station on the 16th of March. There are about twenty officers there employed in connection with winding up and the remainder are awaiting dispersal.

COURT-MARTIAL (LIMERICK).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private W. B. Griffith, No. 290641, care of The Library, New Barracks, Limerick, who, for unavoidably exceeding his leave by twenty-one days owing to illness, was, on reporting at Limerick on the 21st February, placed in the guard room, notwithstanding the production of a certificate from Dr. Pughe Jones, of Barmouth, showing that he had attended the soldier for three weeks; whether he is aware that the soldier is still confined to detention; whether it is competent for a commanding officer to confine a soldier for so long a period and under such circumstances without trial; and whether, in view of the fact that the soldier enlisted in September, 1914, and that he had only returned from Egypt on the 10th December, he will issue immediate instructions for his release and demobilization?

Mr. CHURCHILL: From the documents with which my hon. Friend has been good enough to supply me, it appears that the soldier concerned is awaiting trial by court-martial. In the circumstances the matter must be regarded as sub judice, but I will call for the proceedings of the court-martial when completed, and will communicate with my hon. Friend when they have been examined. He will realise that until an inquiry of this nature has been made, I must not be understood as accepting the accuracy of the statement made in the question.

ALBERT EMBANKMENT.

Mr. GILBERT: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason he has closed part of the Albert Embankment during the last few years, and when he proposes to remove this restriction, so that the public may use this river frontage during the ensuing summer months?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Albert Embankment was closed, at the request of the military authorities for disciplinary reasons during the occupation of St. Thomas' Hospital as a military hospital. The hospital is no longer used by the military, and representations have already been made with a view to the restrictions being removed.

SOLDIERS' GRAVES (ITALY, GREECE, AND TURKEY).

Mr. GILBERT: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made in order to preserve and maintain British soldiers' graves in Italy, Greece, and Turkey?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards Italy and Greece, satisfactory arrangements on the same lines as in France have been made with the respective Governments. The Imperial War Graves Commission will eventually be in charge of war cemeteries in all theatres of war. As regards Turkey, the question must be held over for final settlement until peace is concluded. The matter was noted for consideration at the Peace Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ECONOMIC SITUATION).

PUBLICATION OF REPORTS.

Major Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any Reports as to the economic situation in Germany; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for the Reports to be laid upon the Table of the House, and I hope that they will be published in the course of the next few days.

TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Colonel STEPHENSON: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of resuscitating the organisation of the Territorial Force in this country on the prewar basis without delay, in order to maintain its efficiency, and of utilising the services of pre-war commanding officers who have a good record of war service, but who for various reasons may have been transferred to the Territorial Force Reserve?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have answered this question. I attended yesterday a meeting of Lords Lieutenant and Presidents of the Territorial Force Associations, and I hope that a full report of the statement which I made to them will appear in to-morrow morning's newspapers.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.

Colonel YATE: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, pending the result of the War Office inquiry into the question of officers' uniforms in the after-war Army, he will in the meantime continue the control of the prices to be charged for officers' uniforms in the present day Army, so as to enable officers to replace their present uniforms as nearly as possible at cost price?

Mr. FORSTER: In view of the fact that the prices for officers' uniforms had been reduced by competition much below the maximum prices fixed, and of the diminution in the demand, it was not considered necessary to continue the control which was abolished at the end of November last, and it is not desirable to re-impose it.

FORAGE (ARMY PURCHASE).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a forage-purchasing officer representing the War Office bought 10 tons of wheat straw from Mrs. Evans, Pendre, Towyn, Merioneth, on the 19th September, 1918; whether some months ago repeated applications were made by the vendor for permission to dispose of the straw locally, none of which were acknowledged; whether within the last fourteen days, on being requested to remove the straw, the forage officer offered to sell it to the vendor if a commission of 2s. 6d. per ton were paid; and whether, in view of the fact that the straw cannot now be disposed of locally, and that the land must be got ready for cultivation, he will cause the straw to be removed and to be paid for without delay?

Mr. FORSTER: I am having inquiries made, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (EXPENDITURE).

Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: 80.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what were the sums voted for the Board in the years 1912–13, 1913–14, 1914–15, 1915–16, 1916–17, 1917–18, 1918–19, and the net expenditure and the surplus unexpended?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): This answer is a long string of figures, and I propose to circulate it.

The following is the answer circulated:


—
Vote.
Net Expenditure.
Surplus Unexpended.



£
£
£


1912–13
317,111
313,411
3,700


1913–14
309,547
264,312
45,235


1914–15
344,027
318,885
25,142


1915–16
391,748
367,752
23,996





Deficit


1916–17
335,160
384,167
49,007*


1917–18
469,207
462,947
6,260





Estimated




Estimated
Deficit


1918–19
452,270
502,270
50,000*


* Allocated from Vote of Credit.

UNEMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURE).

Mr. SIMM: 81.
asked the Parliamentary Seretary to the Board of Agriculture if, with a view to lessening unemployment by finding work of permanent value, he will appoint a small Committee to report on the amount of cultivable land in need of new drainage; the amount of land capable of being reclaimed, and the need for alteration in hedges and ditches to meet the requirements of new methods of cultivation?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Special branches of the Board have been established to deal with both drainage and land reclamation, and these branches are already well advised as to the different areas capable of improvement. The rectification of hedges and ditches to meet modern methods of cultivation appear to be matters more suitably dealt with by owners and occupiers. In these circumstances, the Board consider that the appointment of a Committee as suggested is not necessary and might involve delay.
Notwithstanding the existence of unemployment, there is at the present time a great shortage of agricultural labour, and until the more pressing requirements of farmers in order to carry on the normal cultivation of the land have been met, it would be unwise to embark upon the large schemes for reclamation and drainage which are in contemplation, but for which labour could not now be obtained except at the expense of agriculture.

Mr. SIMM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been told this afternoon that considerably over 1,000 agricultural labourers are in receipt of the out-of-work donation?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can only say that all over the country farmers are very short of labour.

REGENT'S PARK.

Mr. ROWLANDS: 82.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the public are still excluded from access to those portions of Regent's Park which lie between the Outer Circle and the Regent's. Canal; and, if so, when he proposes to restore those open spaces to the use of the public?

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The portions of Regent's Park referred to are closed to the public owing to the dangerous condition of the fence between, them and the Canal. It is proposed to restore these open spaces to the use of the public as soon as the fence, which is the property of the Regent Canal Company, shall have been put into a proper state of repair.

PRIMROSE HILL (LIGHTING).

Mr. ROWLANDS: 83.
asked the First Commissioner of Works when it is proposed to restore the lighting of the path ways on Primrose Hill to the pre-war state, in order to secure the greater safety of those who have occasion to cross that open space after dark?

Mr. PRATT: The lamps on Primrose Hill are being repaired, and the lighting of the paths will be restored to the pre-war conditions as soon as these necessary repairs shall have been completed.

ENGINEERING INSTITUTES.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: 84.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what steps have been taken to restore to their proper use the premises of the great engineering institutes which have been occupied by Government staffs during the War, and to facilitate the resumption of the activities of those bodies which are so closely identified with British engineering enterprise?

Mr. PRATT: The First Commissioner of Works is endeavouring by the rearrangement of staffs in other buildings to make room for the officials now in occupation of the institutes, hut the hon. and learned Member will realise that owing to the shortage of office accommodation in London, and to other causes, the task is at present a most difficult one. The First Commissioner assures the hon. Member that he fully appreciates the importance of releasing the institutes in question at the earliest possible moment, and is making every effort to do so.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: 85.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what steps have been taken to enable the professional and technical libraries of the great engineering institutes to be made available for use by students who are being demobilised and with whose adequate training the Ministry of Labour is concerned?

Mr. PRATT: It is presumed that the hon. and learned Member refers to the libraries of the Institutions of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers respectively. In the former instance, the First Commissioner of Works is already arranging for access to the library to be given to students, and hopes that it will be made available within the next few weeks. As regards the Institution of Electrical Engineers, it is feared that it will not be practicable to release the library in advance of the remainder of the building.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BUTTER (INVALIDS).

Mr. GWYNNE: 86.
asked the Food Controller whether M.F. Butter 7 is still in force; whether the effect of this memorandum is to prohibit the supply of more than 6 ozs. of butter to an invalid, although such invalid is suffering from tuberculosis, and the medical attendant has certified that a larger amount is essential for treatment; and, if this is the case, will he consider revising the Order?

Mr. PRATT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, the Ministry are definitely advised that the allowance of butter stated, when supplemented by cooking fats, which can now be obtained in any quantities, is sufficient to meet the medical requirements of such patients. The Food Controller appre-
ciates, however, that in the case of invalids rations should, so far as possible, err on the side of liberality, and notwithstanding the continuing shortage of butter, he is considering the revision of the present arrangement.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS).

Sir J. D. REES: 87.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is intended to give adequate representation of the existing Poor Law authorities upon the proposed consultative councils to be constituted in connection with the new Ministry of Health?

Major ASTOR: I am glad to have this opportunity of stating that the desirability of utilising the special knowledge and experience of persons familiar with the work of Poor Law authorities will be fully borne in mind in determining the composition of the consultative councils which it is proposed to establish under Clause 4 of the Ministry of Health Bill.

CIVIL SERVICE (PROMOTION OF WOMEN).

Mr. J. JONES: 93.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Circular of the 29th January, concerning the promotion of Civil servants to other Departments, applies equally to women; and, if so, whether he will draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the Instruction?

Mr. PRATT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A further Circular was issued on 26th February to remove any possible misapprehension on the point, and was sent to all Departments which received the January Circular, including the Post Office.

ROAD BOARD GRANT (BELFAST).

Mr. MOLES: 94.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Road Board has received an application from the Belfast City Council for a Grant from the funds of the Road Board in aid of a large scheme of road maintenance, reconstruction, and improvements in-
volving an outlay of £120,000, and that the Road Board has met this proposal with the offer of a Grant of £12,000; whether he is aware that Belfast has been the largest contributor of Motor Duties in Ireland for years; and whether, as the Road Board has offered a Grant of £58,000 to Sheffield, a city with 5 miles less of roads than Belfast, he will reconsider the Belfast application with a view to making a more equitable Grant?

Mr. PRATT: The Road Board have agreed to make a Grant from the Road Improvement Fund of 50 per cent. towards the cost of road improvements in Belfast, approximating £24,000. The total amount now available for Grants in Ireland from the fund is £236,000, and it is considered that the case of Belfast has been adequately and fairly met.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is this another Treasury trick?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

TELEGRAMS FROM GENERAL ALLENBY.

Major Earl WINTERTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the absence of published news from Egypt, he can state what is the present position there, and if order is now fully restored?

Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: There has for some time past been considerable delay in the transmission of telegrams from the East (including Egypt), due to the partial breakdown of the Mediterranean cables.
In a telegram, dated 28th March, received yesterday afternoon at the Foreign Office, General Allenby reported that the Delta was practically quiet. Cairo was also quiet.
In Upper Egypt; the area North of Assiout as far as Mellawi was still somewhat disturbed, but 146 European civilians at Assiout were safe.
The Fayoum had been cleared of the bands of Beduin who had made inroads there.
A force dispatched from the Sudan had arrived at Luxor on 26th March, and reported that all was quiet.
A telegram, dated 1st April, was received at the Foreign Office this morning,
in which General Allenby states that twelve columns are operating in Upper and Lower Egypt. No incidents are reported anywhere, except an attack on a construction train near Mazghouna in Middle Egypt. There were a few casualties on both sides, but all is now quiet.
In a further telegram, dated yesterday, General Allenby reports that the Sudan is unaffected, and that he is in touch with the force from the Sudan which has arrived in Upper Egypt.
It appears, therefore, from the foregoing that the complete restoration of law and order in Egypt is now only a matter of time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL ISSUES COMMITTEE.

TERMS OF REFERENCE.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make any announcement in regard to the re-constitution of the Capital Issues Committee?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The following Committee has now been appointed:

Lord Cunliffe, G.B.E. (Chairman)
Mr. Gaspard Farrer (Vice-Chairman)
The Right Hon. J. W. Wilson, M.P.
The Hon. Sir Arthur Lawley, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., K.C.M.G.
Sir Thomas Elliott, Bart., K.C.B.
Sir Hugh Barnes, K.C.S.I., K.C.V.O.
Sir W. H. Mercer, K.C.M.G.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Robinson, K.C.M.G., K.B.E.
Sir W. Watson Rutherford, M.P.
Sir Charles Sykes, K.B.E., M.P.
Mr. J. G. Griffiths, C.V.O.
Mr. H. E. Fass, O.B.E.
Mr. Robert Littlejohn
Mr. Owen Hugh Smith
Mr. C. J. Whittington with
Mr. A. C. Kelly as Secretary.
The terms of reference are as follow:
To consider and advise upon applications received by the Treasury for licences under Defence of the Realm Regulation (30 F) for fresh issue of capital, with a view to preserving capital during the reconstruction period for domestic Purposes within the United Kingdom, and to preventing any avoidable drain upon Foreign Exchanges by the export of capital, except where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury that special circumstances exist.
The amended Defence of the Realm Regulation has already been laid on the Table of the House, and copies are available in the Vote Office. I hope that copies of the Treasury instructions to the Committee will be similarly available this evening. Hon. Members will see from these that, in order that applications may be dealt with expeditiously, the Committee will sit by panels, and that the Committee bas been instructed that no application should be refused unless and until the applicant has been given the opportunity of stating his case orally before one of the panels, whose decision is to be subject to confirmation by the full Committee.
The Committee has been asked, in considering applications, to take into account the extent to which the proceeds of the issue will be expended within the United Kingdom and the assistance which the issue may be expected to give to British trade, preference being given ceteris paribus to those oases in which the proceeds of the issue are to be applied in British Dominions overseas.

HOSPITALS (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).

Major LANE FOX: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the report that it is the intention of the Government by successive steps to take over all hospitals during the next forty years—beginning at once with St. George's Hospital—and whether, in view of the effect that such a report may have on the flow of private subscriptions to such hospitals, he can at once substantiate or deny it?

Major ASTOR: There is no foundation for the suggestions contained in the question.

HOUSING (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have the Second Reading of the Irish Housing Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

INDEMNITIES.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the likelihood of the Debate on the Irish Estimates occupying the whole of to-morrow, he will consider the advisability of giving an earlier opportunity far discussion of the urgent question of war indemnities?

Mr. BONAR LAW: When I proposed tomorrow, I thought there was a chance of the Irish Debate closing by dinner-time. I am led to believe by those best competent to judge that that will not happen. I regret that it has not been possible to fix an earlier day, and I see no means by which such a date can be found except that of moving the Adjournment to-day. If, Mr. Speaker, you think the occasion justifies that course, the Government would be prepared to assent to that.

Colonel LOWTHER: In view of the answer of the Leader of the House, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the proceedings of the Peace Conference, and to ask for information and explanation, especially in regard to the question of war indemnities.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before I put the Question, may I, as this is the first opportunity that has arisen in this Parliament of moving the Adjournment on an urgent and definite matter of public importance, point out to hon. Members that there is no necessity for them to rise in their place unless they challenge the Question that leave be given. When I put the Question whether the hon. Member who makes the Motion has the assent of the House, it is not necessary for Members to rise unless there is a shout of "No!" Should there be a shout of "No!" I will then ask the hon. Member of he is supported. The hon. and gallant Member for the Lonsdale Division asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to an urgent and definite matter of public importance, namely, the proceedings of the Peace Conference, and to ask for information and explanation, especially in regard to the question of indemnities. Has the hon. Member the leave of the House?
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight o'clock this evening.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Llanelly Rural District Water, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Walsall Corporation, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—" That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
3. "That, in the case of the Bedwellty Urban District Council, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Brentford Gas Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to modify the requirements of the enactments relating to public notaries with respect to articled clerks who have served in His Majesty's forces or in other public service or have been prisoners of war or interned in connection with the present War." [Public Notaries (Articled Clerks) Bill [Lords].

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the provisions of section one of the Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Act, 1918." [Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Bill [Lords].

And also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to bonds given by persons to whom administration is granted." [Grant of Administration (Bonds) Bill [Lords].

BILL PRESENTED.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL,—"to amend the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes and the acquisition of small dwellings in Ireland," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Barrie; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

Orders of the Day — NOTICES OF MOTION.

TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Colonel GREIG: On this day two weeks to move, "That in the opinion of this House the retention (on a voluntary basis) and expansion of the Territorial Force in any reorganisation of the forces of the Crown with extended opportunities of training is essential in the public interest."

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: To call attention, this day two weeks, to the present status of the Scottish Office, and to move a Resolution that the status of Scottish Secretary be raised to that of a Secretary of State.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. G. TERRELL: To call attention, this day two weeks, to the administration of the Ministry of Labour, particularly in regard to out-of-work pay, and to move a Resolution.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL.

Ordered, That, after the Order of the Day for Committee on the Army (Annual) Bill, the Parliamentary Elections (Soldiers) Bill be ordered to be read a second time.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSES 1, (Short Title);2, (Army Act to be in Force for Specified Times);3, (Prices in Respect of Billeting); and 4, (Amendment of Section 42 of the Army Act), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of s. 46 of Army Act.)

In Sub-section (1) of Section forty-six of the Army Act (which relates to the proceedings upon investigation of a charge), after the words "for bringing the offender to court-martial" there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of an officer below the rank of field officer may refer the case to be dealt with summarily by a general officer under the provisions of this Act."

4.0 P.M.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
and in paragraph (a), of Sub-section (2), after the word 'pay,' there shall be inserted the following words, 'or may order that the offender forfeit all ordinary pay for a period commencing on the day of the sentence, and not exceeding twenty-eight days.'
In the present Act in peace time the commanding officers can award twenty-eight days' detention or twenty-eight days' confinement to barracks, or he can award certain definite fines, or he can on conviction for an offence automatically sentence a soldier to forfeit pay for the days he is absent. The last two powers-are not at the discretion of the commanding officer, but are automatically fixed. In war-time there is a power given to the commanding officer to deprive a soldier of pay up to twenty-eight days without any other punishment. That is only allowed in war-time. In peace time a commanding officer can award a soldier detention up to twenty-eight days, which in itself carries deprivation of pay for those days, but the commanding officer is in this position, that while he can award the soldier detention and deprive him of pay, he cannot, if he wishes, deprive him of his pay without sentencing him to detention. My Amendment is to provide in peacetime, as in war, that the commanding officer should have the power to-award a fine instead of imprisonment. I think it will be most desirable. It has been found useful during the War. There are many cases of offences in which the officer's only alternative is to send a soldier to detention in peace time. During the War commanding officers have been able by depriving a soldier of so many days' pay. There are many cases where a commanding officer would have felt reluctant to have given detention if he could have punished the man without sending him to detention. This Amendment simply gives the commanding officer the option of awarding a fine instead of imprisonment in certain cases. I would point out to the House that in any case the soldier has the right, of appeal to a court-martial, or rather the officer dealing with such a case, if he intends to award punishment which will carry any deprivation of pay, may ask the soldier whether he is prepared to take his award or whether he would prefer court-martial. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the soldier prefers to be dealt, with by his commanding officer. I point
that out to show that there can be no wish of any injustice to the soldier, and I am moving this Amendment in the interests of the soldier. There might be many cases in peace time in which the soldier will have to be awarded detention. The commanding officer will be able to award him a deprivation of pay instead. I would further point out that in war-time this deprivation of pay is in addition to any other punishment. If hon. Members will read Section 462 (c) of the Army Act, they will see the last sentence reads:
And may, in addition, or without any other punishment order the defender to forfeit all ordinary pay for a period commencing on the day of sentence and not exceeding twenty-eight days.
My Amendment, which comes into 462 (a), would read,
may award the defender detention for any period not exceeding twenty-eight days, or may order that the offender forfeit all ordinary pay for a period commencing on the day of the sentence, not exceeding twenty-eight days.
I am aware that perhaps the Secretary of State may not be prepared to give a definite reply, but I would like to hear what he says. I do not wish to press the Amendment now if he will consider the question. It might be necessary, if this was carried, slightly to amend the King's Regulations in regard to the powers of the commanding officer. In the interests of the soldier and of discipline it might be desirable that this power should be given to the commanding officer in peace time as it has been found useful in war time and has saved in many cases the necessity of sending a soldier to detention.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I do not think this would do at all. My hon. and gallant Friend asks whether I can give a direct and final answer on the subject, and I really find no difficulty in doing so. The forfeiture of pay is a very dangerous subject, and one on which the private soldiers of the Army are extremely sensitive. As the House knows, in time of peace practically the only forfeiture of pay not accompanied by a sentence of imprisonment is forfeiture in the shape of a fine for drunkenness according to scale. My hon. and gallant Friend proposes to carry on in peace a practice which has been legalised in war of forfeiting pay apart from a sentence of detention or imprisonment. He is not, I think, quite squarely facing the real circumstances. In war, on
active service, the soldier is maintained in all respects by the State. He has rations, and everything he requires. There is no vital need for a man to spend anything when he is serving in the field, and in an enormous number of cases, no matter how much money a man has in his pocket, he cannot spend any. Therefore, sentence of forfeiture can be inflicted without absurdity.
But when you come to peace these conditions no longer prevail in the same way. The soldier is living in a garrison town, in England, in the barracks, and so forth where he may be deprived of his pay for twenty-eight days. If a man is imprisoned he does not need any pay, bur if he has to be kept in barracks as a free man to go out as he desires without any pay at all, I do not know what position you are putting this man in; you are exposing him to extraordinary temptations, you are almost certainly getting him into trouble when he gets out of barracks and has not a penny in his pocket—I suppose the statutory penny would be paid to him, but apart from that he would have nothing in his pocket, and yet he would be with comrades who are indulging in the ordinary pleasures and amenities of daily life. I say you would put a premium on desertion or on acts of dishonesty which might easily tend to demoralise the soldier. You must provide for a man when he is in your charge. If he has done wrong he may have to be put in detention, but then he is provided for. To keep him in time of peace in full freedom for twenty-eight days and to give him no pay would not only be leading straight up to a cause of crime but would perhaps be the undoing of men who are thoroughly good soldiers and good citizens.

Colonel ASHLEY: Surely the Secretary of State has fallen into an error in an otherwise admirable argument. Unless I am misinformed, hundreds and thousands of soldiers during the War have had their pay stopped, and I have not noticed or heard that there has been any abnormal amount of desertion. The argument is not so strong as he imagines, as it has happened to hundreds and thousands of soldiers. All that my hon. and gallant Friend wished was to help the soldier and to find some means to remedy as far as possible the taint of imprisonment. If by some means we could find a formula which would enable the commanding officer in matters of not very serious crime to inflict
a money punishment without inflicting detention, I think we should be doing a good work and satisfying the feelings of everybody in the country. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who are in the House to give their experiences and so help us in the solution of this matter.

Lieutenant-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I think deprivation of pay would be much better than sending a man to detention. It seems to me it would be better to have the power of inflicting deprivation of pay without having to send a man to detention. I think the Secretary of State would be well advised to consider whether he cannot accept the Amendment.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: I should like to support the Amendment, which, I consider, is brought forward in the interests of the soldier. The commanding officer, according to the hypothesis, is about to punish a man. The question is whether he is going to give him a severe punishment, which will involve deprivation of pay, or whether he is merely going to stop his pay for a day or two. The course suggested in the Amendment has this additional advantage, that if you give a man detention you deprive the country of his services for a certain time, whereas if you merely fine him he is ready to do his duty right off. I would like to support the Amendment in the interests of the soldier himself.

Mr. MOSLEY: Speaking as an ordinary regimental officer who has frequently been confronted with the necessity to administer justice to the private soldier, I desire to endorse the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. I think there is no subject on which the private soldier is so peculiarly sensitive as the subject which affects his pocket. I have always noticed that there is a latent suspicion in the mind of the private, when a fine is imposed on him, that the money in some way benefits those in authority. There is always that suspicion. It is quite groundless and without any possible foundation, but it is there, and there is nothing in ordinary regimental life which is so well known as the rooted objection of the private to a fine. As the right hon. Gentleman says, fines are enforced for the crime of drunkenness and for no other offence. If a private soldier gets detention, he realises that he is doing no work for the country through his crime and that he deserves no pay. I do not think there is any feeling in his mind that he has in any way
been robbed, but I think it is a very dangerous course to give power to a commanding officer to administer fines of this nature and to interfere with the men's pay. It would give rise to very grave cause of unrest in the Army.

Colonel GREIG: I notice that in Section 46 of the Act, where a commanding officer deals summarily with a case, he may award detention for a period not exceeding twenty-eight days and in addition may order the defendant to suffer any deduction from his ordinary pay. It would be ill-advised, I think, to add to these deductions. When you turn to Sections 138 and 140 the classes of deduction are very carefully laid down, and they have evidently been carefully thought out.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not at all true to say that the troops at home have not been on active service conditions. They have been. Anyone forming an opinion as to what has gone on during the War would be misled as to the position existing in the Army in time of peace. Nor is there any basis for the idea, which perhaps exists in some quarters, that a commanding officer has to choose between sending a man to detention or else not being able to deal with him, and that this forfeiture of pay will provide a via media. The whole apparatus of reprimand, extra drill parades, extra guards, pickets, and confinement to barracks, remains open before you get to the point where you need send a man to prison. I do hope the House of Commons will regard the pay of the private soldier as sacred, because if you can take away that pay at the will of a commanding officer you will not get out of the mind of soldiers that someone is having a profit out of them, and that it is an unfair way of taking away money which they have earned.

Mr. ADAMSON: I think that there is much strength in the argument put forward by the Secretary of State. I have had many complaints sent on during the course of the War, not only about the forfeiture of pay, but what was of more vital importance to the soldier was the forfeiture of the separation allowance to his wife and dependants, when the soldier was guilty of any breach of Army Regulations. I rose for the purpose of asking the Secretary of State to consider seriously, between now and the Report stage, introducing an Amendment which will take away the power, either of the officers or for the Army authorities in any shape or
form, forfeiting the separation allowance to wife and dependants for a breach of Army Regulations by the soldier.

Sir J. HOPE: I do not wish to press this Amendment. I moved it entirely to raise the question. I still think that it might in many cases have given the commanding officer extra power of dealing leniently with a soldier and saving the soldier being sent to prison. There are cases where the commanding officer is reluctant to send a man to detention, but does not think that in justice he can pass over the case by confinement to barracks, because it is a serious offence, and I thought that this might give an opportunity to the commanding officer to deal in a proper way with such cases. But, in view of what has been said, I do not desire to press the question. I shall be very glad to support the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Fife in reference to separation allowance for wife and dependants.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power to Deal Summarily with Charges against Officers.)

After Section forty-six of the Army Act the following Section shall be inserted—
46A. (1) Any of the following authorities shall have power to deal summarily with a charge against an officer below the rank of field officer referred for that purpose, or for trial by court-martial, under the foregoing Section of this Act, that is to say, any general officer authorised to convene a general court-martial, and also, on active service, the General Officer Commander-in-Chief in the field, and any officer (not under the rank of major-general) appointed for the purpose by him, or by the Army Council.
(2) The authority having power to deal summarily with the case may dismiss the charge, if he in his discretion thinks that it ought not to be proceeded with, but where he thinks the charge ought to be proceeded with, he may take steps for bringing the offender to a court-martial, or may deal with the case summarily by awarding one or more of the following punishments—

(a) Forfeiture of seniority of rank either in the Army or in the corps to which the offender belongs, or in both.
(b) Severe reprimand or reprimand.
(3) Where the authority having power to deal summarily with the case, after hearing the evidence, considers that he may so deal with the case, he shall, unless he awards a severe reprimand, or a reprimand, in every case ask the officer charged whether he desires to be dealt with summarily or to be tried by a court-martial, and if the officer elects to be tried by a court-martial, take steps for bringing him to trial by a court-martial, but otherwise shall proceed to deal with the case summarily.
(4) In every case where an authority has power to dispose of a case summarily, the accused officer may demand that the evidence against him should be taken on oath, and the same oath or solemn declaration as that required to be taken by witnesses before a court-martial shall be administered to each witness in such case.
(5) An offender shall not be liable to be tried by court-martial for any offence which has been dealt with summarily under this Section, and shall not be liable to be punished by a general officer under this Section for any offence of which he has been acquitted or convicted by a competent civil Court or by a court-martial.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "may" ["case may dismiss"], to insert the words
with or without hearing the evidence.
This is the first of a series of small Amendments to make it quite plain that the general officer commanding, to whom we propose to give power under this Section, will be able to dismiss a case without having to wade through all the evidence. There is some doubt whether as the Clause has stood when the general officer has made up his mind to dismiss the case he would not have felt it incumbent upon him to hear all the evidence before so doing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "but" ["but where"], and insert instead thereof the word "or."

Leave out the words "he may" ["he may take steps"].

After the word "may" ["or may deal"], insert the words "after hearing the evidence"].

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "after hearing the evidence."

In Sub-section (4), after the word "summarily," insert the words "and decides so to do."—[Mr. Forster.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of s. 114 of Army Act with Respect to Lists of Horses.)

Section one hundred and fourteen of the Army Act (which provides for the preparation of an annual list of persons liable to supply carriages and animals) shall be amended as follows—
After Sub-section (1A) the following Sub-section shall be inserted:
(1B) With respect to horses, the following provisions shall have effect—

(i) It shall be the duty of the owner of any horses are the occupier of any premises where horses are kept, to furnish, if so required, to the authority hereinafter men-
1249
tioned before such date in each year as may be prescribed a return specifying the number of horses belonging to him or kept on his premises, and giving with respect to every horse such details as may be so prescribed; he shall also afford all reasonable facilities for erabling any horse belonging to him or kept on his premises to be inspected and examined as and when required by the said authority; if any person fails to comply with any of the requirements of this paragraph, he shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;
(ii) The Army Counciil may, for the purposes of this Sub-section, make Regulations prescribing anything which under this Sub section is to be prescribed, and prescribing the forms to be used, and generally for the purpose of carrying this Sub-section into effect;
(iii) Regulations made by the Army Council may provide for excepting from the provisions of this Sub-section horses of any class or description specified in the Regulations."

For Sub-section (4) there shall be substituted the following Sub-section:
(4) The authority for the purposes of this Section shall be the Army Council or any authority or persons to whom the Army Council may delegate their powers under this Section.

Amendment made: After the word "follows" ["amended as follows"], insert the words:
In Sub-section (1A), the second paragraph shall be omitted."—[Mr. Forster.]

Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iii.) to insert the words:
(4) If any officer is obstructed in the exercise of his powers under this Section, a Justice of the Peace may, if satisfied by information on oath that the officer has been so obstructed, issue a search warrant authorising the constable named therein, accompanied by the officer, to enter the premises in respect of which the conviction took place, at any time between six o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock in the evening, and inspect any carriages or animals that may be found therein.
When debating the Bill on Second Reading, we were very anxious that there should be no ground for the apprehension that officers who have to carry out duties under the Bill could force themselves in an undesirable way into the premises of those whose animals they have to inspect, and it is really to adopt largely the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Ashley) that we move this Amendment. Suppose, for instance, an inspecting officer went to inspect premises against the wishes of the owner, and the owner wished him either to discontinue or not to commence his inspection, then the officer would go to the magistrate and he would get a search
warrant, and, accompanied by a representative of the civil power, he would make his inspection. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will feel that we are doing something to meet the point which he raised on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY: The point which I raised on the Second Reading was this, that in peace time the civil, and not the military power, should be the ruling power in this country. Before this Amendment was moved, it meant that the Army Council could authorise any Army officer to enter anyone's stables and outbuildings, and take a census of his carriages and horses, and I thought it quite wrong that the Englishman's castle, the home, should be invaded by any authority other than the civil power. Therefore, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has met the point by providing that the representative of the military power should come to the magistrate and get authority, and should make the inspection accompanied by a constable. Nobody wants to stop the Army Council getting a census of horses, or doing anything necessary for the safety of the realm, but in peace time this should be done under the authority of the civil power.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not know what my right hon. Friend says between the hours of six in the morning and nine at night. I cannot fancy an inspector of remounts wanting to inspect horses at 6.30 in the evening.

Mr. FORSTER: In summer time.

Earl WINTERTON: It should be made as convenient as possible for the owner of the horses. It would be more convenient if it were made the time of day at which horses are ordinarily inspected.

Mr. FORSTER: There are the present hours.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl WINTERTON: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman gave any explanation on the Second Reading, but I wish to ask what the Government have in view in that portion of the new Clause, in Sub-section (1), which says, "giving with respect to every horse such details as may be prescribed," and which also calls on the owner to "afford all reason-
able facilities for enabling any horse belonging to him or kept on his premises to be inspected and examined as and when required by the said authority." As regards this regulation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give to the Committee some idea of the questions which the horse owner may be expected to have to answer. I presume what it is desired to obtain under the Clause is a simple statement from the horse owner of the class of horse he possesses, whether it is suitable for heavy or light draft work, and whether it is suitable for riding purposes. Then as to the question of the inspection and examination of the horses, I wish to put this point: There is a good deal of difference in the country as to the cruelty of the practice of testing a horse's wind by means of the stick test. I hope it is not suggested that the form the examination will take will include the use of that test. Is it intended under the Bill that the inspector of remounts shall go to the various stations in the country and test each horse in the way it is tested when it is being examined and inspected for Government purposes? I want to know what form the examination is to take. Is it to be a full veterinary examination? What is the meaning of the words "inspected and examined"?

Mr. FORSTER: I confess my Noble Friend has put to me certain points on questions of detail which I am not in a position to answer. I cannot say precisely what test will be employed by the inspectors, but I think my Noble Friend will probably have had sufficient experience of the Remount Department of the War Office and their inspectors to know that nothing undesirable in the way of inspection is to be feared under this Bill. Under the scheme as contemplated the actual census will be compiled by the Board of Trade, which during the course of the War has been carrying out the duty and has done it extremely well. It is proposed to ask the Board of Trade to continue that work.

Earl WINTERTON: That is what I want to know. As far as I can see, horse owners have no kind of security that someone will not be sent down by the Board of Trade who is not a veterinary surgeon or qualified to make this examination.

Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps I did not make myself clear to the Noble Lord. The
census will be compiled by the Board of Trade, but the inspection will be made by an inspecting officer from the War Office.

Earl WINTERTON: By someone from the Remount Department who is competent to inspect horses?

Mr. FORSTER: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 8 (Amendment of Section 115 of Army Act); 9, (Amendment of Section 131 of Army Act); 10 (Retrospective effect of increased rate of deduction under Section 145 of the Army Act); and 11, (Amendment of Section 153 of Army Act), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Penalty for Causing Disaffection, etc.)

The following Section shall be inserted after Section one hundred and fifty-three of the Army Act:
153A. Any person who—

(a) by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular or other printed publication, spreads reports or makes statements intended or likely to prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any of His Majesty's military forces or in any body of persons enrolled for employment under the Army Council, or to prejudice the training, discipline, or administration of such forces; or
(b) attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause disaffection amongst any of His Majesty's military forces; or
(c) attempts to induce any member of any of His Majesty's military forces to act in a manner which such person knows to be in contravention of the King's Regulations or Army or other Orders, or any Regulations for the time being in force respecting the Reserve forces or the Territorial Force; or
(d) obstructs, impedes or otherwise interferes with any member of His Majesty's military forces in the execution of his duties,
shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (a).
In moving this Amendment I may say that this Clause is causing great concern to the working classes of this country. By putting it into the Army (Annual) Act in the terms in which it is at present the Government are simply seeking to translate into permanent legislation some of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which were put into operation to meet the circumstances of
an abnormal time, and by doing this they are strengthening the power and influence of militarism in this country. We have been allowed to believe during the whole course of the great struggle from which we are just emerging, that this was a war to destroy militarism, that being the opinion generally held, at any rate in working-class circles, and the Committee can well understand that a proposal of the character we are now considering is causing very great concern indeed to the working-class movement in the country. The Prime Minister, we are led to believe from newspaper reports, is at the present time putting up a very hard fight for the establishment of a League of Nations. We believe if such a League were set up the necessity for militarism, as the world has known it up to the present, would entirely disappear. Consequently we cannot understand the reason why the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and the Government, should seek to strengthen still further the power and influence of militarism in this country at the present moment. In the teems of Clause 12 Members of Parliament and trade union officials would have the activities in which they nave been engaged during the past four and a half years on behalf of those of their constituents who are serving in the Army very much curtailed. As a matter of fact if this Clause is allowed to stand in its present form it would be impossible for either Members of Parliament or trade union officials to come to the assistance of constituents in the way they have been doing during the past four and a half years, with great benefit to the men and the dependants of the men serving in the Army. If the Secretary for War thinks that by amending the Army (Annual) Act in the manner provided for in Clause 12 he is going to strengthen the respect for the law among a very large section of the people of this country, I fear he is making a serious mistake. I think that the present law is quite sufficient to meet the circumstances of the case. Under that law an offender such as this law seeks to deal, with can be fined in a penalty not exceeding £20, and we consider that that is quite sufficient power to be in the hands of the Government and of the military authorities. When this question was under discussion on the Second Heading the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who was then in charge of the Bill, was drawn to this particular Clause, and he promised that he would
give the suggestions for its modification serious consideration between then and the Committee stage. I hope, in keeping with that promise, he is going to give effect to the Amendment which I have great pleasure in now moving.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We live in very serious times. I do not think the Committee would be well advised to omit from this Bill either the whole, of this Sub-section or the whole of this Clause. Probably there never was a time when more mischief could be wrought to the general fabric and structure of the State by the kind of thing which is stigmatised and penalised in this Clause.

Mr. ADAMSON: And you are increasing the danger by inserting such a Clause in this Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I submit we are as good judges as hon. Gentlemen opposite on that point. I decline to admit there are any experts in democracy in this House. We are all elected on equal terms and have a right to equal credit and consideration. We are elected on the widest franchise obtaining in any country in the world, and it is our business to see that the people's rights are not derogated from or prejudiced in any respect. I do think that if a man by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular or other printed publication, spreads reports or makes statements in tended or likely to prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any of his Majesty's Auxiliary Forces he is committing a serious offence, especially in the times in which we live, and the State certainly ought to be protected against such an offence. I consider also that if a man attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause disaffection amongst any of His Majesty's Forces, it is a very serious matter—

Mr. ADAMSON: It was always a serious offence.

Mr. CHURCHILL: And the £20 penalty is not certainly a sufficient penalty for any man who wilfully and wantonly attempts to create a mutiny or disaffection in any of those large bodies of military men whom we have on our hands at the present time in the different stages of demobilisation in which they are. Then take paragraph (c). I think it will be convenient to refer to the whole Clause in dealing with this most important Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: On a point of Order. I take it that if the right hon. Gentleman refers to the whole Clause we shall not be debarred from having a full discussion of the further Amendments on the ground that the whole Clause has already been discussed.

The CHAIRMAN: No. It was my view that it would be for the general convenience of the Committee that on the first Amendment I should allow a more or less general discussion of the whole Clause. Then we could take the other Amendments afterwards, if the Committee is not satisfied with what is said on the first.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Paragraph (c) says:
Attempts to induce any member of any of His Majesty's military forces to act in a manner which such person knows to be in contravention of the King's Regulations.
An ordinary soldier is liable to these very severe penalties. He is liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour for conduct of that kind. Is the man who seduces and instigates him to that action to be liable to the penalty only of £20, which my hon. Friend says is an absolutely sufficient deterrent for cases of this kind? Experience has shown that a purely financial penalty is not a sufficient deterrent. We then reach the interesting stage of asking where the £20 is supplied from. There is no lack of £20 in the world when you are dealing with a question of this kind. Such sums come from very odd sources and at very convenient moments. We should not rest ourselves entirely upon the basis of a purely monetary penalty. Paragraph (b) deals with any person who
obstructs, impedes, or otherwise interferes with any member of His Majesty's military forces in the execution of his duties.
I say that no man—I leave it entirely to the opinion of the Committee and I place myself in their hands—looking out over the whole state of the world at the present time, who wants to make it easy and cheap for agitators, who hate this country, who have done their utmost to bring it to its knees in the time of war, to go about working up sedition, mischief and mutinies in our Army ought to receive the support of the Committee or of the House to which this Committee must make its Report. I cannot think that the terms of the Clause fail to warrant the penalties inflicted. I should like to point out that we have lived under these terms during the last few critical years through which we have been
passing, because this Clause has been taken bodily front the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

Mr. ADAMSON: We were at war then.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are still at a period which cannot be called peace time. It may not again become war time, but you cannot call it peace time. The present is not the same as that safe and comfortable time in which we lived in the years preceding the great War. We still have all the great effervescence and confusion of war.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Will this Clause be withdrawn after peace has been signed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Clause only stands for one year. It can be re-examined and rediscussed in the light of the circumstances as we find them then.

An HON. MEMBER: Will it be withdrawn or repealed before the election?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know when the election will come. If the hon. Gentleman thinks there will be some great advantage to be gained by any particular party being able to work upon the loyalty and discipline of the soldiers at election time, and that party advantage might flow from that, he is very much mistaken. It is most important that in dealing with attempts to incite sedition in the Army, or to cause discontent among the considerable bodies of armed men in present conditions you should not do anything to interfere with fair and reasonable criticism of the military authorities or of the War Office in regard to anything they might do in respect to the administration of the Army or the conditions under which it is raised or recruited. Has there been any country in the world in which there has been such criticism during the War as has gone on in this country? There have been the most vehement criticisms which have not been dealt with under the very full provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act. The utmost latitude has been given to all reasonable and fair criticism. It is the intention that that should not be in any way impaired in the future any more than it has been in the past. Do not let it be imagined that we are trying to escape criticism, or even scathing censure, or shrewd and excoriating ridicule. We are as ready to have as much of that as the daily Press and hon. Gentlemen can supply us with. The intent to create sedition
and discontent in the armed forces and to seduce soldiers from their duties are matters which fall into an entirely different category and which ought to be dealt with by altogether different processes and under processes which cannot be met by a paltry pecuniary fine. However, I have considered this matter very carefully in the light of the opinions which were expressed in the Debate on the Second Reading, and I am exceedingly anxious that we should take a course which brings everybody together in the matter. I was impressed by the opinions expressed here to the effect that it is possible that legitimate criticism might be involved in some cases by the provisions of this Clause as they stand. I think we had better stick to the intention and to the principle, but I am quite ready to drop out the words "likely to," in order that we may have as large a body of opinion with us as possible. I would therefore propose to amend this Clause by dropping out the words "or likely" in paragraph (a) and also the words "or likely" in paragraph (b). Perhaps I may mention here that I am quite ready to accept the Amendment in the names of hon. Members opposite to leave out the words
or in any body of persons enrolled for employment under the Army Council.
I imagine that hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought that that might contemplate the enrolment of a large body of civilians under the Army Council for the purpose of strike-breaking or something like that. We have never contemplated anything of the sort. These words are intended to apply to Queen Mary's Auxiliary Army Corps and to the Women's Royal Air Force. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not say so?"] I do not think it is necessary to say so. I am quite willing to accept that Amendment to leave out those words altogether, and to leave the women's organisations, which we shall keep in being, to the extent that we shall keep them in being after the War, exposed to the full blast of the mephitic influences against which this measure is intended to protect the men of the Regular Army. I do not think we shall have any difficulty in recruiting the number of these women that we want, and I am not prepared to make difficulties for a point of that kind. Therefore, I am in a position to meet my hon. Friends on two very substantial points. I am going to accept fully the Amendment to leave out the words
or in any body of persons enrolled for employment under the Army Council,
and I am prepared to leave out the words "or likely" in paragraphs (a) and (b). That is a very important alteration, which I am advised very markedly reduces the chances of a conviction being obtained under the Army Act, but it is an alteration which I think we can afford.

Colonel THORNE: I should think you could!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad my hon and gallant Friend agrees with me. It is one I think we can afford, even in these difficult times, and in the hope that it may mitigate some of the wrath expressed from the Opposition Benches, I offer it with my best wishes for the consideration of the Committee.

Colonel ASHLEY: I rather wish that the Secretary of State for War had given us the concluding paragraph of his speech first, and had left out all the beginning, because we should have saved seven minutes of time. Probably most of us will agree that he has met us very fairly so far as paragraph (a) is concerned. Personally, I am not satisfied with regard to the penalties, but we shall deal with them later.

Colonel THORNE: We are all very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has made. He can afford to delete these words, because the sting is in the other words as well. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that many of us on these benches have done our bit during the War, and, before the Military Service Act came into operation, helped recruiting under the Derby scheme. Indeed, many of us are still prepared to advocate the voluntary principle for recruiting the Army. This Clause will hit some of us very hard, especially those of us engaged in trade union work, and who take part in demonstrations. Supposing, for instance, a demonstration were held next Sunday, and some of my hon. Friends were to criticise the rates of pay now being given to the soldiers, and were to say that they were insufficient, and that the Government ought to do a great deal more than they have done up to the present time, I believe they could be summoned under this particular Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

5.0 P.M.

Colonel THORNE: What might happen would be that you would get some
officious police officer or policeman or a private detective who might be at the meeting and listening to the speeches, who would report to the superintendent, and the superintendent might come to the conclusion that we had been doing something which would injure recruiting and the discipline of the Army. The result would be that a summons would be issued, and we should find great difficulty in getting out of this Clause. This is the first time such a Clause has been inserted in this Bill. We know who the Government are after, just as much as they know themselves. We know there are a few people in this country—they are very few indeed; you could almost count them on your two hands—who are doing their level best to discredit this country and prevent any men from joining the Army. So far as we are concerned we have no sympathy with them. We are up against them every time and are fighting them every yard. What you want to do is to penalise one or two men who are doing their level best to prevent men from joining the Army. But there is a great danger that some of us who have been helping you during the War will be penalised. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to withdraw the Clause altogether. The Government have plenty of power now to penalise anyone who does anything to prevent recruiting or to cause anything like rebellion or mutiny in the Army. Nobody wants that. No single Member of our party wants to see the same thing happening in this country as is happening in Germany and Russia at the present time. The Government will be doing the very thing they do not want to do. They will be causing a great deal of dissatisfaction among organised labour, who will feel inclined to kick over the traces. We have been doing our level best to keep the rank and file of labour in proper order and discipline, but I am quite certain that the rank and file of organised labour will be very much alarmed if this Clause goes through in its present form. Therefore the Secretary of State for War would be well advised to leave the Clause to get the Bill through, and to let us work in peace and harmony the same as during the War period.

Sir H. DALZIEL: While we welcome the assistance which has been given by my right hon. Friend I think the Com-
mittee ought to approach the consideration of the Clause with very great care and caution. I understood him to say he was only embodying in the Army Bill the Clause already contained in the regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. It is necessary that he should make it a permanent piece of machinery in the Army Act while he has the power at present under the Defence of the Realm Act? It is all very well for him to say we can consider this at the end of next year in the new Army Act. We do not know exactly what conditions may prevail at that time. He knows as well as I know that for the Committee to accept a Clause of this kind in effect makes it very difficult indeed under any circumstances for the House to reverse its decision. At what period is it contemplated that the Defence of the Realm Act will be withdrawn?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It comes to an end with the statutory termination of the War.

Sir H. DALZIEL: I think the terms are the ratification of peace. What is my right hon. Friend's anticipation of when that date will be? He surely anticipates that it will take place before one year expires.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. That is a hope.

Sir H. DALZIEL: Does my right hon. Friend seriously suggest, as a responsible member of the Government, that he thinks peace may not be declared before one year has passed? It can only be that belief that justifies this Clause, because if peace is ratified in the course of a few months, which I hope it may be—the Government will have to look after themselves if it is not—there is no cause whatever for the Clause, because up to the moment when peace is ratified you have the same powers as you are asking for, and therefore my right hon. Friend is asking for something in peace time which, in my opinion, he has no right to demand from the House of Commons. Does he contemplate another war after the ratification of peace? If not, no recruiting for war purposes will be required, and it will not be necessary to issue these strong powers. I therefore put it to the Committee that my right hon. Friend has these powers till the end of the War, till peace has been declared, and he has made no case for having them in time of peace.
Let me go a little further and examine the intention. He has very wisely with-
drawn the words "as likely" because they are capable of a very wide interpretation. Therefore the intention has to be considered. What is the intention in this respect? Suppose, for the sake of example, the Government were going to decide on an aggressive military policy in Russia, and I were to write or deliver a speech to the effect that I thought this was a dangerous and a disastrous policy and I gave reasons why it ought not to be supported by the electors of this country. Would that be prejudicing recruiting? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that that criticism was levelled at the intention of the Government to launch a great Army in Russia or elsewhere and that overwhelming reasons were given against that policy, and the people of this country were advised not to support it. That would undoubtedly be prejudicing recruiting, because a citizen Mould say, "I see no cause for this great expedition. I see no cause for this aggressive military policy. If it had been a reasonable policy I should have volunteered and been willing to be recruited, but I am convinced the policy is wrong, and therefore I propose to withdraw my intention of entering the military force." Under this Clause there is no doubt whatever that any person who criticised the policy of the Government would render himself liable to be prosecuted. But that is not all. It is the effect of the Clause itself that interferes with liberty. Men are not going to express their honest opinions. They are not going to write their honest opinions. They have no time to be troubled with the Public Prosecutor, or any of his friends. Therefore, rather than risk a prosecution, they refrain altogether from any criticism. It has a paralysing effect upon freedom of speech, upon the liberty of the Press, and upon the liberty of the citizen.
I go a little further. I notice my right hon. Friend has brought in the words, "or administration of such forces." What do they mean? Administration, I take it, would mean the War Office officials in Whitehall, including my right hon. Friend himself. I am sure he would be the very last man who would complain of any criticism. What political success he has had, which is very great, in this House and the country is partly due to the criticism he has had—not entirely, for I must make some allowance for his great natural ability. But I am sure he is the last man who would complain of criticism,
and therefore, by including the words "administration," he is protecting himself and his officials in Whitehall against criticism. Let me give a concrete case. We had an example the other day of gross neglect or gross blundering on the part of some official at the War Office. I refer to a number of men at Victoria Station waiting for hours without any facilities to go back to the front and having to walk the streets at night through no fault of their own and having to live as best they could during the few days they were in London. My right hon. Friend very quickly dealt with that matter. But still a blunder was committed. There was a mistake somewhere, and there was a good deal of feeling among the members of the forces who were concerned. If I were to say that the administration of the officials of the War Office was faulty, that they had committed a blunder and made a great mistake which was calculated to create dissatisfaction in His Majesty's Forces, should I be prosecuted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

Sir H. DALZIEL: My right hon. Friend might not be at the War Office at the time. He might be occupying a position of greater responsibility, and his promise to me will not count. These decisions are not made entirely by the head of the War Office. They are made by a police-constable or a police-magistrate in a particular district. Therefore, it does not lie with him to give any assurance on the point. Undoubtedly any person who criticises the administration of the War Office, as the Clause stands, even in its proposed amended form will be liable to prosecution. I make an appeal to my right hon. Friend. In the first place, in my opinion, such a prosecution should come only before the High Court. In the second place, I appeal to him, as he has the power until peace is signed, let him wait until peace is signed. Let him bring in a new Bill embodying this Clause at that time if the conditions make it appear to be necessary. But I appeal to him at present not to persevere with this Clause, because I think it is a dangerous Clause which will give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding and which is totally unnecessary.

Mr. TILLETT: I want to add my appeal to the others which have been made. I do it in full sympathy with the Government. If such a Clause as this had
existed when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech in criticism of the Army he would be in gaol by now. He would have had a long period in gaol. I want to make this appeal, that you do not make bleating martyrs, that you do not emphasise men who really do not count, that you do not insult the democracy, and as more or less of an expert on democracy I want to claim that in this War no other nation has offered such a loyal contribution in blood and treasure as the manhood and the democracy of this country. I do not want you to turn them down. I do not want you to turn their relatives down. I do not want you to turn the memory of their bloody sacrifices down. It is all very well to say there may be dangers. Of course there have been clangers. Of course there have been many things said, calculatedly said, hysterically said, and said in moments of mere excitement. Even Cabinet Ministers are given to excitement at times. We have heard of Limehouse speeches and probably the most brilliant periods of some of our brilliant Cabinet Ministers have come at moments of excitement, because at such periods whatever genius they possess expresses itself. No other country was in exactly the same position as ourselves at the commencement of this War. We had no Army and even the head of our Navy has confessed that it was not as well prepared as it might have been. Presuming criticisms are offered, those of us who are friends of our country are bound, even more than the Government, to offer criticism, and any construction may be placed upon our words. I might have had seven years for sedition and not on police evidence. I do not think the police are generally untrue. I am not saying a word against the police, because I have had a good deal to do with them and as a body they are as honourable as any other class I know. But it is just as well that you do not make martyrs. We can do without any of this protection. I hope the Government is not alarmed. The democracy and the industrial classes of this country are not Bolshevik, and there is no responsible trade union or Labour leader in this country who is at the moment opposed to the interests of his country. You build up your Army. No other country had such an opportunity. Hundreds of thousands of men came to
your ranks right through the War. The whole of the workers have come to your aid. I believe you have been freer because you allowed criticism. If you carry this sort of thing Lord North-cliffe ought to be fetched from the South of France and put into gaol, and our hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South (Mr. Bottomley) would be in gaol next week, and I can see a shiver on my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy.
It is useless to import into a measure of this character things which you cannot carry out. If you carry out this Clause, logically and legally, there is no public man of any importance in this country who can safely offer criticism, and no public newspaper which can safely offer comment. There is no man in pulpit or on platform who can indulge in fair speech. If this measure is passed the enemies of this country will at once say that we are imitating Kaiserism and Czarism. I tell the House that just as we are opposed to Kaiserism and Czarism, so we are opposed to Bolshevism, and if there is any tendency in that direction it will be a misadventure by the mishandling by this Government of the temper and temperament and spirit of the nation. I ask you in all sincerity not to impose legal obligations upon those who up till now have helped you to carry through this War, and some of us who are responsible have had a very difficult task to fulfil. I am not whining about it. We shall go through, whatever happens, but if you tie our hands, and the hands of the best minds and best hearts that have helped the country, then on you must be the blame. To offer such a suggestion as this is like a red rag to a bull, and by it you undo our work, our loyalty, and our service. I ask the Secretary for War to withdraw this Clause absolutely. You have the power already. I ask that it be removed from this Bill, so that, at least, those of us who love our country and love order and a fair Government shall be helped, and so that you shall not strengthen the Bolshevik element.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I was not fortunate enough to be in the House when the Secretary of State for War replied, but I have heard the two last speeches, and I must say that two more powerful and destructive criticisms of the proposal under consideration I have never heard. The appeal which has just been made by my
hon. Friend is one which, I am quite sure, the Government will find it very difficult to resist. Let me emphasise the points made by my right hon. Friend. What is your danger zone? It is, presumably, up to the ratification of peace and the end of the War. That is already covered by the existing Regulations. Then what is your case? It must be made for the conditions which obtain after the ratification of peace. What are those conditions? They are at present unknown, and no one can tell what they will be. Then is the time to come to the House, when you know what the peace conditions are, and until that you are amply secured. What is the answer to that? I dare say that the Secretary of State for War, with his extraordinary verbal and literary resources, may find an answer. Why do you want this power, when you do not know what the conditions after peace will be? Everybody has the right to assume that they will be conditions which will reflect credit on the public spirit of every class in this country. The Government have agreed, to leave out the words "or likely," but that is a very little thing. Take, for instance, the question of a voluntary Army and its training. Is it at all a good way to get the public spirit which is necessary to produce a voluntary Army and it is only by public spirit and good-wall you can get it, to antagonise that feeling by such a Clause as this—surely not. What about training? Constantly, in this House, we hear complaints about the method of training. It is right and proper that it should be so, and that does not seem to have caused any real injury to the military machine in these times, or anterior to the date of the War. How often in the public Press and on platforms has the question of field punishment been raised, and also in this House, and yet in doing so outside you are at once within the ambit of the power of the magistrate and police authority? In those circumstances this House would be the only place where you could discuss a matter of that kind without fear of prosecution. My right hon. Friend has also referred to the provision as to administration. It might be said "we will not exercise those powers," but that really is quite the last absurdity in defence of such a power. You ought not to have this power unless you make out an overwhelming case for it, but there is no case made out for it at present. After peace
is declared, and when we have the conditions before us, let us see what is necessary and what is proved to be necessary.

Mr. T. THOMSON: As one who has served in the ranks I should like to make an appeal on behalf of the soldiers themselves, because when they are free to have their opinions and their grievances voiced by Members of this House here, and outside this House by others, they realise that they are not entirely under the heel of Army discipline. I suppose one has to serve in the ranks to realise what the military machine really means. Until one has had that experience one does not realise how he has wholly lost his identity and how he becomes simply a cog in the big military machine, with all sense of humanity and individuality lost. To deny to Members of Parliament, as this Clause would do, the right to voice the grievances of the men in the ranks in the Press or on the platform would be doing an injustice and taking away from our soldiers a protection which now exists. I know that the right hon. Gentleman says it is not the intention of the Government by this Act to prohibit reasonable criticism of the Army and its administration, but my experience as a magistrate has shown me that our legal advisers tell us, when men are brought before the Courts, that it is not what Parliament intended, but what the Act says. I am perfectly certain, from my magisterial experience that if a Member of this House were brought before us after criticising adversely certain matters in connection with the Army that would have to be construed as conduct which was prejudicial to recruiting. Therefore I appeal to the Government, in the interests of the men, and of recruiting generally, to withdraw this Clause. Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations the power remains in force as long as the War exists, and surely when we get back to peace conditions we are going to give men not less but greater liberty and greater freedom than they had before.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I also desire to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman about this Clause. I do not think it appears to be generally appreciated that this Bill only carries us to the 30th April next. It has been clearly pointed out that under the Defence of the Realm Act you have these powers now, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, until peace. In the few months interval, if the right hon. Gentleman finds that recruiting
is being prejudiced, then it will be his duty to come and tell the House so, and I believe that the whole House would support him at once. He has made out no case to-day. It is suggested that it might be too late in a few months, but I do not think so. If any action were taken by any individual you could bring in a Bill at once to take steps to stop it. This Clause wants entire redrafting. There is much too much of Army Council about it. The right hon Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) referred to the possibilities which might arise in connection with criticism or administration. That means to say that in my own Constituency I am not to bring charges against the Army Council, which I have consistently done since I became a Member of Parliament. If I did so I should be put in prison, and I suppose they would be only too delighted to put me there.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman's criticism would be with the object of improving the administration.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: Of course it would be to improve it, and that is the object of all my criticism, but in the opinion of the Army Council it would be to damage it. They have never yet supported my proposals, and every proposal I put forward on every single occasion has been turned down. Therefore I would be found in the wrong. I do beg of him to reconsider this matter. It is only for a few months, and at this time next year the same subject can again be brought up. Some form of this Clause might be accepted unanimously by this House, as, for instance, Sub-Clause (d), to which I should have no objection myself—
obstructs, impedes, or otherwise interferes with any member of His Majesty's military forces in the execution of his duties.
That seems to be very reasonable. I think it is most essential that this House should keep complete control over everything to do with the Army. We only allow the King to have an Army for one year because of this very reason, that it must be an Army belonging to the people, and unless it is you cannot have an Army at all. Therefore you do not always want to be prosecuting the people because they are criticising their own Army. The whole spirit of this Clause is against the spirit of the British Army, which is a one-year Army. It compels the Army administra-
tion to organise their Army in such a way that it meets the public views, but this Clause does just the opposite, and the whole spirit of it is against the spirit of the British Army. If we go to a Division, I shall have to vote against it, much as I dislike voting against the Government.

Mr. T. SHAW: I wish to appeal to the Secretary of State to withdraw this Clause. It has been very clearly proved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy that the powers the War Secretary wishes for under this Clause he already possesses to such an extent and for such a time as to keep him absolutely out of danger during the period that elapses between now and peace. I want to make my principal appeal to him for rather a different reason from those which have been adduced. This Clause is presumably intended to deal with those men who are deliberately antinational and who wish to injure the interests of their own country. I have some knowledge of the working people of this country, and I do not think that men of any prominence of that character amount to a greater number in this country than could be counted on the fingers of your hand. They are just the type of people who enjoy a free advertisement. This Clause gives them the finest advertisement of their lives, and helps them in their propaganda against the Government, which propaganda is based on the assumption that the Government is guilty of bad faith, that it is a militarist Government, and that it cannot be trusted in any circumstances. Why give them the free advertisement they seek? There is another class of people in the community who are equally and even more dangerous, in my opinion There is such a thing, even in our country, as nerves. There are people in the country who behind every shadow see a German spy, who in every financial transaction see the German machinations, who in every strike see German gold, who in every public meeting at which a little excitement is shown see Bolshevist propaganda. These hysterical people are more dangerous than the active Bolshevists, and this Clause will please them as well as it will please the actual Bolshevists. I would suggest that the dignity of our nation should be so high in our estimation as to prevent us carrying a Clause of this nature, which assumes in itself that the country is in grave danger from a certain part of its population. I do not believe the country is in danger from any part of
its population. I do not believe that those people whose nerves have given way ought to dictate the policy of the country. I do not believe the liberties of the nation ought to be touched, and every man, surely, who believes in free speech, free thought, free conduct, and free expression will resent this Clause, and I believe the Secretary of State for War will be well advised to withdraw it, because it gives him no new power, because it gives a valuable advertisement to the worst part of our population, and because in no sense can it do him any good.

Mr. INSKIP: I think some of us on these benches agree with every reason which has been given for the deletion of Clause (a), and I venture with great respect to add one additional reason why the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw this Clause. I think we all have a horror of discretionary offences, by which I mean offences which are offences when one person commits them and not offences when another person commits them. During the course of this War I have had an experience which has led me to form a clear and definite opinion as to the in advisability of a Clause of this sort in an Act of Parliament. I have had the humble duty of advising one of His Majesty's Departments as to offences of this character under D.O.R.A., and the occasions on which a prosecution is advisable for offences of the sort indicated or intended by Clause (a) are exceedingly difficult to define. During the time that there has been a censorship, which, of course, is still in force, but which I hope will be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment, of private correspondence, there has been a large number of private persons who have offended in letter, and probably in spirit also, against D.O.R.A. The difficulty of discovering whether or not it would be prudent to have a prosecution in such cases has been immense, but I am certain that if there had been prosecutions in anything like a large number of the cases where an offence had been committed it would have been to the prejudice of the interests of this country. It was not necessary in the interests of the country that prosecutions should take place, nor was it desirable, and, however necessary it may be that the Defence of the Realm Regulations should exist while we are in a state of war in order that wide powers may be given to the Executive, I think we are all agreed that when peace comes
the Executive should be tied down to offences which are clear if they are committed and as to which prosecution should inevitably follow, whether or not the person is highly placed or is lowly placed when the offence has been committed. This Clause is vague in the offence which it creates. It leaves practically everything to the opinion of the magistrate or the judge, and there is no indication as to the method by which the tribunals shall arrive at the intention of the party who, by private letter or by private conversation, as well as by public manifesto, does something with the intention of prejudicing recruiting. We have a rooted objection to offences of this kind. One or other of two things will happen—either we shall have a multiplicity of prosecutions, trivial in their nature, disastrous to the state of public feeling in this country, and irritating to the persons against whom proceedings are taken, or we shall have the Clause a dead letter, because legal people who have to advise as to whether proceedings should be taken or not, will find it almost impossible to arrive at a sound conclusion. The Clause will become as dead as the blasphemy laws. It will be on the Statute Book, and we shall be in the position of having an offence which a Minister can use or not use at his pleasure against a particular individual. Some of us would be unwilling, if it is necessary, to vote against the Government on this particular Clause, but I venture to think that some of us will feel bound to do so, and I for one shall feel certainly bound to do so, unless I see a Clause of this vagueness taken out of the Bill, where I am surprised to see the Government thought it necessary to give it a place.

Mr. HAYDAY: My own opinion upon the Clause is that it is a piece of panic legislation. I do not think there is the slightest ground for such a Clause finding its way into the Bill. If its purpose is to secure a big body of voluntary recruits for the future Army, then I respectfully suggest that it will have just the opposite effect, because you will at once make the prospective volunteer feel that not only will he come under the ordinary Army Regulations, but that, whatever grievance, imaginary or real, he may have cause to complain of whilst serving with the Colours, he will be deterred from making that grievance known to his relatives or to the public representatives with a view
to remedying them. Already one is receiving quite a volume of correspondence expressing the view that the Government, by the extension of conscript legislation, have secured a large body compulsorily for the Army, and that that body naturally suffers from grievances which undoubtedly do exist, such as huge concentrations in Egypt at the moment awaiting transport home for demobilisation, and, it is alleged, on short rations. If we were to make such an utterance outside the House with such a Regulation as this finding its way into the Army (Annual) Act, we should at once be subject to prosecution on the ground that we were doing something likely to create disaffection in His Majesty's Forces. The soldiers who are compulsorily retained in the service of the country, having this volume of grievances to hand now filling their letters home, will feel that this is an attempt to fasten upon them further Regulations to prevent expression being given to their views upon conditions, Regulations, and the like, as at present found in the Army, and when those parents send those letters to any public representative, or when indeed a demobilised person from the Army exposes something that he feels ought to be exposed to the public, he will at once be liable, and with such a Regulation as this in existence he will feel that an injustice has been done to him. I suggest that the British race do not require any of this strange kind of legislation to keep it in order. I suggest that we are made of quite different material to that. I suggest that whatever crisis the country may be called upon to face, it will face it, no matter what degree of sacrifice it may be called upon to make. Let us feel as far as it is possible free to criticise and free to expose. Can there be anything wrong by public statement implying that all is not well with the Army, and that something ought to be done? I would even go so far as to say that a description of the administration as bad and rotten would be justified under the circumstances, and yet this would lay the person making such a statement open to prosecution at once. As the British race, we believe in retaining as much freedom of the subject as it is possible to do, and I feel that unless the Government is desirous of giving fresh encouragement and a new lease of life to the few real criminal disturbers of the Army, they had better withdraw this Clause. These men will otherwise go to the public and say to the mothers, "Your
sons are writing home to you, but the Army Act will prevent you making known any grievances that they write to you about." And you will at once find a state of suspicious thought created.
Remember these people were out to do all they could for the War. If you block the channel for their giving public expression to their feelings they will at once resort to subterannean methods, and that they will by cunning devices do more harm than it will be possible for them if they were allowed to speak. Let us give them English fair-play, freedom of expression, and of criticism—helpful criticism let us hope. One would not like it to be laid down that criticism should be stifled, though one would hope that at all times it would be helpful criticism. I can well remember an incident during the War where a man in the excitement of the moment gave expression to a certain sentiment. He was at once vindictively punished for it. Within two months of that circumstance that man was praised for having given expression to the sentiments he had. You will possibly have that sort of thing if you are allowed to be at the mercy of the mere parochial policeman, or of the detective working under some Sub-department of Army Administration who will find his way into meetings, take shorthand notes, and alter the meaning of sentences which, when read out coldly before a justice of the peace, will be sufficient to condemn the man who has uttered them, while at the same time his intentions were honourable and his criticisms were designed to be helpful, with no desire in him but to remedy some grievance or other. He would be open to be laid hold of, charged, convicted, fined or imprisoned, for ever after described as an enemy of his country and of his class, and a man who was not fit to reside in the nation which gave him birth. Let us keep that amount of freedom that Britishers, as a general rule used fairly, righteously, and decently—during the War. You had no complaint to make during the War which was a difficult and a very serious period. Now that, as we hope that serious side has receded, and will soon disappear from view for ever, do let us retain the full liberty of the subject and freedom to the soldier to express what is within him. The soldier who has the longest catalogue of complaints against him, the one that swears the hardest, and so on, is usually the best fighting man. I would not stifle, if I could, any expression
of the grievances of himself and fellow soldiers. Also you must have a public expression of opinion on these matters through the public representatives. If your intention is not in some way to effect this, the people outside will believe that that is your intention. You will do better not to insist upon the Clause, but to leave us with the Regulations that already give protection against interference with he-cruiting and with the real discipline and effectiveness of the forces You have power enough in them to cope with any trouble or difficulty that may arise.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Judging this discussion from its outset—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up, we cannot hear a word"]— we may, on both sides, be exaggerating the importance of the issue at stake. I cannot for my part deny that a very great body of legal structure remains at the disposal of the Government irrespective of this Clause. For instance, we have full power under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Then we have the permanent powers of the Army Act in regard to recruiting which makes it an offence liable to a fine on summary conviction—
Directly or indirectly to interfere with the recruiting for the Services.
With regard to paragraph (b), which is a most important Sub-section, the only complaint at issue between us and the Committee is the difference between that Sub-section and the permanent law of the land. We have the Mutiny Act of 1797, which is infinitely more severe than anything which is contained in this provision. Let me read the provision:—
Any person who shall maliciously and advisedly endeavour to seduce any person or persons serving in His Majesty's Forces, by sea or land, from his or their duty and allegiance to His Majesty, or to incite or stir up any such person or persons to commit any act of mutiny, or to make or endeavour to make any mutinous assembly, or to commit any traitorous or mutinous practice whatsoever, shall on being legally convicted of such offence, be adjudged guilty of felony—
for which the maximum punishment is penal servitude for life. That is the permanent law of the land. The only difference which is involved in the passage of this temporary provision in the Army (Annual) Bill is that it introduces the word "disaffection" in regard to much smaller offences in addition to the great body of law which we have. Of course, mutiny is any number of soldiers, that is more than two or three, coming together in defiance to do some act or take some course in defiance of lawful
authority. Therefore, as I say, there is a very great body of law, not only of emergency, up-to-date law, lapsing with the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but the permanent and statutory law of the country which already safeguards the discipline of the armed forces. So that I do not want to exaggerate the consequences which will ensue from the non-inclusion of this Clause in the Act. On the other hand, I must say when we survey the ample powers which have been in existence, and when we look back upon the actual practice of the last few years, it is rather absurd to hear the kind of speeches that we have heard to the effect that a man must not even ask a question of the War Office, or tell his Constituents he is going to do so, without immediately being haled off and given two years' imprisonment with hard labour. We have not exceeded the administration of the provisions in this Clause which is included in this Bill. There has been criticism in this country. As I have said, there was a state of almost general—well, I will not use that word—but there was criticism that produced widespread mutiny in many parts of the Services.

Sir H. DALZIEL: Why did yon not take action at once then?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Because it was thought proper to proceed by other measures to deal with the evil. We did so. The persons who were engaged in this criticism, when they saw the evil consequences of their levity, immediately came to the aid of the Government, and ceased that course of agitation which was demoralising and causing the disaffection, in the Army. That is quite true. But what I am pointing out is this, that an ample number of occasions have existed during the present War which have been used to a very great, if not to a dangerous, extent in some cases. On these occasions the Government have not invoked or utilised the powers of prosecution. How many prosecutions, I should like to know, have there been under these full powers? I believe, although I have not verified them, you could count them on the fingers of one hand. Yet we are to be told," You are seeking to muzzle the free expression of the grievances of the soldier." The thing is absurd! I believe this is the right thing to do. If the House were to allow the inclusion of this Clause in the Army Act and to carry it forward until we can reconsider the matter this time next year, when we shall be much
more able to judge what the state of affairs in the world is going to be, I have not the slightest doubt that that would be a wise and prudent course. On the other hand, I cannot stand up here and say that we cannot carry on the administration of the Army without it. In view of that fact, I feel myself bound to take into consideration the very strongly pronounced opinion that has manifested itself in all quarters of the House. I do not at all take the view that Parliament has to accept whatever the Government proposes. It is no use if Ministers are not prepared to be guided by the sense of the House in any matter which is not absolutely vital. I cannot say that this Clause is absolutely vital to the Army. I think it would be valuable. Having regard, however, to the considerable body of legal provision to which I have referred, and the strong expression of opinion from all parts of the House, I will not oppose the opinion which has been expressed. I am quite willing to allow the Clause to be withdrawn.

Colonel W.THORNE: You will soon get your Bill now.

Sir H. DALZIEL: The Committee will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for realising the opinion of the vast majority of the Members here I must say I am sorry he did not make the withdrawal with a little more grace if I may say so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think so. I think my right hon. Friend would have been well advised to have based his change of attitude entirely upon the opinion of the House. He criticised us, certainly towards the end of his speech, and I think his attitude in that respect was not justified. What, however, I lose to say was this: that I think my right hon. Friend will do well at all times to recognise the opinion of the House of Commons, as I am sure he will, against his advisers in Whitehall. I can quite understand that this Clause was not the Clause of my right hon. Friend himself. I think I can see the battle between my right hon. Friend and the bureaucrats of Whitehall, even before this Clause itself was embodied in the Bill. I would ask him in future to exercise his own individual opinion, and not allow himself to be too much influenced by the permanent officials. The Committee have done well in opposing this Clause. It allows the country to see that we are not going to give full, unfettered power to any Govern-
ment, however strong or powerful. I would say to my right hon. Friend that he might well, when he goes back to the War Office, give instructions for a board to be put up there bearing a motto, "Beware of bureaucrats."

6.0 P.M.

Mr. ADAMSON: As one who moved this Amendment we have been discussing I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic attitude. I am certain of this, that the action he has taken this afternoon will in no wise undermine the stability and the power of the Army. On the other hand, I think it will tend to strengthen the Army rather than to weaken it. I think the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken is the proper one in the interests not only of the Army but of the country, and on behalf of the party I represent, I want to congratulate him upon the line he has taken.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Amendment of s. 98 of the Army Act.)

Paragraph (4) of Section ninety-eight of the Army Act (which imposes a penalty on unlawful interference with recruiting) shall be omitted.

Mr. FORSTER: Now that the previous Clause has been withdrawn, it will be necessary that this Clause should also go.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 14 (Amendment of Section 156 of the Army Act) agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Unauthorised Use of Decorations, etc.)

After Section one hundred and fifty-six of the Army Act, the following Section shall be inserted:
156A. If—

(a) any unauthorised person uses or wears any military decoration or medal, or any badge, wound stripe, or emblem supplied or authorised by the Army Council, or any decoration, medal, badge, wound stripe or emblem so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive; or
(b) any person falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any such decoration, medal, badge, wound stripe, or emblem as aforesaid; or
(c) any person without lawful authority or excuse supplies or offers to supply any such decoration, medal, badge, wound stripe, or emblem as aforesaid to any person not authorised to use or wear the same;
such person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment;
Provided that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prohibit the wearing or supply of ordinary regimental badges or any brooch or ornament representing the same.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "medal" ["decoration or medal"] to insert the words "medal ribbon."
I apologise for this slight omission in the drafting. The object of this Clause is really a very important one. We know how much all these emblems of gallantry are prized by the country, and it is necessary that they should be protected against fraudulent and spurious use by quite severe penalties, so that the men will be all the more proud of the right to wear them, and will not be misled by others who profit by use of these decorations. We have included all symbols of military prowess, including wound stripes and all decorations, emblems, and medals. We want to make certain that when we see a man wearing two or three wound stripes and a medal, that we see a man whom everybody in the country is proud of.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph (a), after the word "medal" ["medal, badge, wound stripe, or emblem"], to insert the words "medal ribbon."

In paragraph (b), after the word "medal," insert the words "medal ribbon."

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: I beg to move in paragraph (c) to leave out the words "lawful authority or excuse," and to insert instead thereof
licence granted by the Secretary of State for War or Air.
My excuse for moving this Amendment is that I have had a certain amount of practical experience in the working of this particular Sub-section, and I found that in practice it was a very difficult Sub-section to work. The Sub-section deals with a man who "without lawful authority or excuse supplies or offers to supply any such decoration, medal, badge, wound stripe or emblem." The first two paragraphs are admirable because they deal with the men who wear ribbons and decorations to which they
are not entitled, and personate those whom they are not entitled to personate. The main difficulty is that it is so easy for those who wish to obtain these decorations to purchase them, and for twopence you can purchase a medal ribbon in many shops all over the country, and it is difficult to stop the sale of these ribbons. Proof of what I say may be seen almost anywhere in any large town, where you can see numbers and numbers of shops which supply wound stripes, decorations, chevrons, and all the rest of it at a low price, and it must be perfectly obvious that the number of decorations awarded could not possibly be sufficient to enable these shops to carry on in a perfectly legitimate way and they must sell a large amount of medal ribbon, wound stripes, chevrons and so on, without making proper inquiries.
On certain occasions it was my duty to institute proceedings against shops that did this particular kind of business, and it was extremely hard to get a case. We had to resort to those means which are repugnant to everybody in this country—that is, we had to be the agent-provocateur. We had, in order to set up a case to send someone to buy the ribbons, secure the evidence and then start a prosecution, and a case supported in that way does not meet with favour from the magistrates, and on many occasions the magistrates would say, "We thought all these things were supplied by the War Office, and we had no idea they could be obtained by anybody from a shop, and how is it that more careful supervision is not exercised?" Our answer was always this: This very Sub-section, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, does not stop the illegal sale of these decorations, and the comment generally was that the thing is in itself rather obscure, and it is difficult to know what "lawful authority or excuse" is, and we hold that the Government should have very much further control over the sale of these particular things.
The purpose of my Amendment is a via media. I recognise that it might cause hardship in the case of shops where their trade would be suddenly and entirely stopped, and therefore I suppose that some form of licence should be granted by a competent authority to a shop to sell these particular articles, and
on the granting of the licence it should be made perfectly plain to the shopkeeper, and he should be held responsible for seeing that his assistants are cognisant of the requirments which the licence would set out that he should only sell these decorations after he had satisfied himself in certain particular ways. Naturally he would require to satisfy himself that a man was entitled to wear what he says he is entitled to. I realise that I may not have drafted my Amendment in a way that gives effect to what I desire. The Government will recognise that the Sub-section as it stands throws a great responsibility on the police, and if the Government would take into their hands greater control over the supply and sale of these decorations, I think that would meet the case.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I am sure that paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Clause will be welcomed throughout the British Army, and every officer will think the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this Clause before the House. As to paragraph (c), I doubt whether it does not go much too far, because it makes it illegal to supply even a wound stripe to anyone not authorised to use or wear the same. That means that a soldier's wife may go out shopping, and she would not be able to buy an inch of ribbon. I think I am dealing with a matter of substance. Is it to be considered illegal to sell even an inch of ribbon unless you can prove that you are entitled to it? There are something like 7,000,000 men who will be entitled to these rights. It is absurd to think that every time they will have the authority with them to prove that they are entitled to it. It certainly ought to be illegal to sell an order or a medal of any kind, but there ought not to be any limitation on the sale of ribbons, or wound stripes, or service stripes, because, if there is, you make quite innocent people liable to the penalties.
We have already wiped out one Clause bringing heavy penalties upon innocent people, but here again we are proposing to inflict penalties upon thousands of shopkeepers throughout the country who will be selling these ribbons to men when the medals are issued, and there are something like 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 of them to be issued. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major C. Lowther) would make the Clause even
more strict. He has been a Provost-Marshal, and is all for strengthening the police? We do not want to strengthen the police, but to maintain the liberty of the subject. This Clause proposes unnecessarily to make it a crime, and it is a thing that you cannot possibly carry out. There' is not a little draper's shop in the country that is not selling the 1914 and 1915 ribbon. How are the men to get it otherwise? Are they to write to a London tailor? We must not look at this matter from the point of view of an officer. There are hundreds of thousands of the 1914–15 Star, and directly these new war medals are issued there will be millions of them. Are you going by an Amendment to make a great industry and to give this trade to some special people? The Army Council has quite enough to do already, and does not want to have to give licences to every country draper. I therefore suggest that the Clause should be amended by striking out everything except decorations and medals, and that it should not extend to ribbons. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but there will be millions of these medals and where are the men to get the ribbons from if they cannot go to the local draper?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no objection so far as the Government are concerned to their getting the ribbons from any shop. We do not say where they should be purchased, but we do say that they must not be sold to people who have no right to wear them.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The Clause does not do that. It is not possible for a woman behind a counter to know whether my right hon. Friend has given Private John Jones the right to wear a medal or not. If my right hon Friend will look info it he will see that he is going far beyond anything that is practicable. If he will leave out all reference to ribbons, wound stripes, and so on, and simply make it illegal to sell the Victoria Cross or the Mons Star, I am with him. If a man in the North of Scotland or in the wilds of Ireland wants to get an inch of the new medal ribbon, where is he to get it, and how is he to prove that he is entitled to it?

Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that there is so much difficulty as my hon. and gallant Friend seems to suggest. We are all agreed that we must punish the man who wears a ribbon or a decoration to which he is not entitled.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: That is paragraphs (a) and (b).

Mr. FORSTER: Then in paragraph (c) we propose that the man who sells without authority or excuse should also be punishable. I think the Committee must see that it is eminently undesirable that we should have the whole of the shops selling ribbons to anybody who chooses to ask for them.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: How can you stop it?

Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend says, "How can you stop it? How are these men to get their ribbons?" There are hundreds of thousands who have been granted the 1914–15 Star and there will be millions entitled to the war medal. If a man is a serving soldier, he can produce some evidence that he is a serving soldier.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: He may have been demobilised.

Mr. FORSTER: Then he can produce his discharge certificate. He carries it with him. There is no difficulty about producing it. If you let any shop sell these ribbons to any man who chooses to walk in, you will have the whole population in some towns smothered with ribbons to which they are not entitled. We must do something in the direction of this Subsection, but the Amendment carries the matter too far. I do not think it would be desirable to limit the sale of ribbons to certain selected shops, and it is quite impossible to give the licence of the Secretary of State so broadcast as my hon. and gallant Friend who proposed the Amendment (Major C. Lowther) appeared to suggest. On the whole, taking a reasonable view of things, I do not think that the difficulties to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite drew attention are so considerable as first appears, and I think the words of the Sub-section adequately carry out our intention.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: My right hon. Friend has said that a man would go into a shop with his discharge certificate, but there is nothing about his discharge certificate here—not a word. Here is a private soldier. He has his discharge certificate. His character is good. Miss Somebody or other behind the counter has to consider, Did he get the War medal or not? Did he get the Military Medal? Did he get a Bar? It is ludicrous to suggest such a thing. Call for any man's discharge cer-
tificate and see if there is entered upon it anything to show that the man has the War medal.

Mr. FORSTER: The question is whether the shopkeeper has an excuse for selling. If a man walks into a shop, produces his discharge certificate, and asks for a ribbon, no one can say that the shopman has not an excuse for supplying him, but if Tom, Dick, or Harry walks into a shop and produces nothing the shopkeeper has no excuse for supplying him.

Captain REDMOND: I desire to support the views put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir I. Philipps). I fail to see how an ordinary shopkeeper, say, a small tailor, in any part of the United Kingdom, can be called upon to make investigations or inquiries regarding a demand for a mere wound-stripe. What would be the nature of those inquiries? Would he have to write a letter to the War Office and ask whether Private So-and-so was entitled to a wound-stripe? It is a ridiculous proposition from the point of view of the shopkeeper, and I imagine that the War Office are content with the amount of correspondence they already have on hand. Do they want to have correspondence rolling in from every quarter of the United Kingdom and the Empire, asking whether this, that, or the other man is entitled to a wound stripe, a service ribbon, or any other form of decoration? It is wrong to place the onus of responsibility, as proposed by this Sub-section, upon the person who supplies the stripe. It is perfectly right and proper, as we have already recorded by passing paragraphs (a) and (b), that nobody shall be permitted to wear any form of decoration to which he is not entitled, but that is an entirely different proposition from penalising a shopkeeper for not making extravagant investigations entailing considerable time, expense and correspondence into every case that comes his way. I do not see the necessity for this Subsection at all. If a man manages to obtain a wound stripe or any other form of decoration surreptitiously, let the blame fall upon him and not upon the innocent shopkeeper or his assistant, who merely performs his work as a shopkeeper and gives the man what he demands. I do not see, therefore, why the suggestion put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend, which I think would have the general support of
the Committee, could not be accepted. It is perfectly true that there have been gross abuses in the past and that there will be in the future in regard to these various decorations, but let the blame be fastened upon the person who commits the abuse and not upon the innocent shopkeeper.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are under cross fire upon this Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend attacked us with an Amendment in order to carry out a proposal much more extravagant than that which we put forward, and, having opened up his artillery fire, he has drawn upon our unoffending trenches a considerable counter bombardment from the artillery on the opposite heights. I really think that we might be allowed to state our own case. The provision which we have introduced in these three Subsections affecting the sale of these emblems is only what is the law at present under the Defence of the Realm Acts, so that all these very alarming things which it is suggested might happen and would happen in remote parts of Ireland where apparently in every village they are expecting people to have a complete stock of Victoria Crosses and War medals to meet every contingency, have not occurred in the past, and it is probable will will not occur in the future. The Committee will see that there ought to be some deterrent operative against a regular traffic in decorations. It ought not to be a trade which could be pushed to any extreme with complete immunity. After all, it might become a regular business for a shop to supply people with faked decorations, and thereby deceive the public, and bring discredit upon the Army as a whole, and upon those who have won these decorations, which are so precious that they ought to be safeguarded. I do not think the words of the Clause fail to give every loophole to any innocent man. I should have thought that in almost every ease, except where there was a corrupt and fraudulent trade going on, that would be a complete safeguard against prosecution, and, still more, conviction. But I should regret if there were to be absolutely no penalty for the sale of Victoria Crosses, Conduct medals, Military medals, and to forth, irrespective of any attempt to ascertain whether they were entitled to them, and even possibly with a directly fraudulent intent. Therefore, I hope the Clause may stand, but, in deference to what my
hon. and gallant Friend has said, I am quite willing not to insert the word "ribbon."

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted that.

Major LOWTHER: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words
badge, wound stripe, or emblem.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I accept that as consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the words
or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am willing to meet my hon. and gallant Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 180 of the Army Act.)

In paragraph (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 180 of the Army Act, which relates to the application of the Army Act to His Majesty's Indian Forces, after the words "court-martial," there shall be inserted the words, "or where the case is dealt with summarily under the provisions of this Act the authority having the power so to deal with the case."—[Mr Forster.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

On Clause 6 we gave certain powers to general officers, and it was not noticed at the time that they were not applicable to the Indian Army. This new Clause is to give the general officer in India the same power that is given to the general officer at home.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

The following Clauses stood on the Paper in the name of Major HAYWARD:
Section forty-six of the Army Act (which relates to the powers of a commanding officer) shall be amended as follows:
Leave out from 'may award' to first 'twenty-eight days and' in Sub-section (2) (d).
Section forty-four of the Army Act (which relates to scale of punishments by courts-martial) shall be amended as follows:
After the word 'flogging' insert 'and other than personal restraint by being kept in irons or other fetters,' in proviso (5).
Leave out 'shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour,' and insert 'may be of the character of hard labour'

Major HAYWARD: The two Clauses standing in my name on the Paper both deal with the question of field punishment No. 1. I have handed in, in substitution for these new Clauses, others dealing with precisely the same question, but which probably are in a more accurate form, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I first deal with the second, relating to Section 44, which deals with the general question. I think it was either last year, or the year before, in this House that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then representing the War Office, reminded us, quite rightly, that this question of field punishment No. 1 was the responsibility of Parliament. If it is not the creation of Parliament itself, it is an adopted child, because Clause 44 of the Army Act as it stands provides that where a soldier on active service is guilty of any offence, then there can be inflicted such field punishment as is there referred to, and it specifically provides that
such field punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour, but shall not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb.
That is taken from the Clause of the Act of Parliament itself. Being exceedingly jealous to safeguard the interests of the soldier, Parliament went on to provide in the same Clause that
all rules with respect to field punishment made in pursuance of this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable after they are made.
Therefore, Parliament not only passed the first Clause authorising a special kind of punishment, but adopted and sanctioned particular rules afterwards. I say this in order to remind the Committee that this is the creation of Parliament. Parliament is responsible for its continuance, if it is going to be continued, and I am going now to appeal to Parliament to exercise its prerogative of removing it. These rules provide for two classes of field punishment. Under the rules dealing with No. 1 a man can be kept in irons, fetters or handcuffs, or both fetters and handcuffs, and may be
secured so as to prevent his escape, and straps may be used in lieu of irons. When in irons he may be attached to a fixed object. Field punishment may be given for periods up to three months, and the tying-up part of the punishment may be spread over that period as follows: He may be tied up for two hours a day. He may be tied up for three consecutive days out of four, and he may be tied up in this way for twenty-one days in all. During the whole of that period of the sentence he will not only be subjected to this particular form of punishment, but he will also be undergoing imprisonment with a very severe kind of hard labour in addition.
All I have to say about field punishment No. 2 is that it consists of hard labour imprisonment, without the objectionable form of tying-up the man to which I am calling attention. The Chief Secretary for Ireland on the last occasion deprecated any attempt to deal with the question at that time, seeing what the position on the Western Front was, and we refrained from dealing with it then. I venture to suggest, however, that the time has now come when Parliament should very properly review this matter. It might be said this might very easily lend itself to prejudice. I submit that is not a proper view to take of the case at all. Anybody who knows anything about this subject cannot think of it or even speak of it without feelings of intense shame, humiliation and resentment. I should like to tell the Committee what I have heard a very distinguished general say about that particular form of punishment, but that would be quite impossible, even with the most elastic interpretation of Parliamentary language. I have told the Committee what the Act and the rules provide. What really happens is this. The man is sentenced to a period of field punishment No. 1. While he is undergoing his sentence he is pulled out from time to time, three consecutive days at a time, for two hours, and tied up to some fixed object, tied up by the hands and tied up by the feet. I have seen men tied up in the public streets in France and to gateways facing the street, and French civilians and French children passing during that time. I have seen men tied up to sign posts in the middle of French villages.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is entirely wrong and contrary to Regulations.

Major HAYWARD: The right hon. Gentleman says it is entirely wrong and contrary to Regulations. I am not quite sure. Is there a recent Regulation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, there is a regulation.

Major HAYWARD: I am glad to hear that, because I have seen these things myself and I only called attention to them because I thought there had not been another regulation made upon the subject. I am exceedingly glad to know that that very objectionable feature no longer exists; but I suggest that the features which still remain are, if not equally objectionable, so objectionable that they ought to be removed. Let me remind the Committee that this punishment does not only happen to your vicious, hardened man, the man who is rebellious and whose hand is against everybody. It happens to the very decent man who has been unfortunate enough to come up against Army discipline in some way or another. I know it has happened to decent men. I know men of that type who have undergone this very terrible punishment. Whatever kind of man it happens to and for whatever crime, what should be the object of the punishment? I suggest—and I think the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree with me—that the object of all punishment should be remedial and deterrent only. Let us apply that test. First of all, what is the effect of this kind of punishment upon the man himself? Take your vicious, thoroughly bad fellow—the shameless, hardened sinner. This kind of punishment has very little effect upon a man of that description, because the real sting of field punishment No. 1 is not in the physical discomfort, it is the moral degradation and the humiliation. Therefore it has very little effect upon your thoroughly hardened sinner. The real torture is not to the body; the real torture is soul-torture. What are its effects upon your thoroughly decent fellow? The effects upon him are of the very worst possible description. The iron enters his soul, and when he has been subject to this punishment his heart, if not his hand, is against all men for a very long time to come. For evermore he is a humiliated, degraded man, and it is no use to tell me that it is not so. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have very decent fellows in my mind now. I have one I am particularly thinking of—a man I knew thoroughly well in the regiment, a good fellow—who for some trivial
offence had been subjected to a period of field punishment No. 1. I saw him undergoing the punishment and he saw that I saw him, and ever afterwards when I met him a look came into his eyes like the look of a wounded, stricken dog. That is the effect of this punishment on the decent man.
So much for the effect upon the man who receives the punishment. What is the effect upon others? What is the effect upon the other soldiers who see it? I believe one of the excuses for this sort of punishment is that it is a deterrent and a terrible example to others. It is a terrible example to others, but the real effect upon everyone who sees it is to fill them with loathing, with indignation, with disgust and with a feeling of revulsion. I was told by a very gallant officer not very long ago, an officer who was wearing six wound stripes, who had been through and had seen all the horrors of the War, who had been blown up and buried in the trenches; in fact, there was nothing about the War that was terrible that he had not seen, and he told me that of all the things that he had seen, the only thing that had made him really physically sick was when he first saw field punishment No. 1 being administered. Words would absolutely fail me to describe my own felings when I saw it. I say that these effects are not remedial and are not deterrent. They are degrading and humiliating both to the soldiers who are subject to the punishment and to those who see them.
May I deal with another phase of this question? For what offences is this punishment given? I have heard the suggestion again and again that this form of punishment is only meant and is only given for very serious crimes in the Army, for crimes which probably in England would not be serious but which on active service are very serious. But this form of punishment can be given for the most trivial offences as well as for the most serious offences. One of the very serious defects in the Army Act is that that can be so. You have different commanding officers with different views giving different punishment for the same offence, so that you have not only inequality in the administration of justice in the Army but that inequality causes a great deal of misgiving and dissatisfaction amongst the troops. I think it is within the memory of many hon. Members who were in the last House that attention has been called to
cases where the punishment has been inflicted for the crime known as trotting mules. The Army is such a wonderful organism that although you have mastered the Army Act, as you thought, and were familiar with its offences, yet by merely making an order you can make anything in the world a military offence. It was made a military offence to trot mules. A very proper order, but was it a proper thing that for a breach of that order a man should be liable to this very terrible punishment! Certainly not! However, I understand it was done in cases referred to in this House. Again, I believe it was given for losing iron rations. It is a serious thing to lose iron rations, although anybody who has been in a regiment knows it is a very difficult thing not to lose those rations under service conditions. It has been given for losing a tin hat. Is that serious enough to merit this punishment? I know cases where twenty-one days' field punishment were given for simple intoxication whether in the line or out of the line. Is it suggested that that is a proper case for the infliction of this punishment? Of course, it is not! Moreover, this very serious penalty can be inflicted not only by a Court but by a commanding officer for any offence.

Major O'NEILL: Field punishment No. 1 can only be given by a commanding officer, subject to the man's right to elect to be tried by court-martial.

Major HAYWARD: That is so, but the men do not appeal. Very few of the men know about the powers of appeal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I will accept the correction, but the fact is that this punishment is given by commanding officers for these offences and that the men do not appeal but suffer the punishment. That is not denied, and I say that is a state of things which this Committee and the House of Commons, which is responsible, ought certainly not to allow. Many very distinguished generals are absolutely of opinion that this form of punishment is very bad and absolutely unnecessary. What is the case for field punishment No. 1? What was the case made out last year and by an hon. Member the other night? It is that you must have, as is undoubtedly the fact, some severe form of punishment which can be inflicted quickly and in the line, without taking away too many men from the line, and which will be sufficiently severe to be a deterrent. That
is not disputed. That must be so. Everybody is agreed upon that; but I have heard a very distinguished general say that he believes that field punishment No. 2—that is, the hard labour punishment-could be administered so severely as to be just as good punishment as a deterrent as field punishment No. 1. The reason is also put forward that if you had not got this form of punishment there would be many more sentences of death by court-martial. Has it come to this, that it is beyond the wit of man and beyond human ingenuity to devise anything between tying up a man and shooting him? Is there no other alternative? I move this Amendment, because it will, first of all, if it is passed, do away with this very objectionable form of punishment. It will at the same time leave the War Office open to devise other means of field punishment which shall secure the objects desired and which shall be free from this terrible reproach, and will enable them to come back to us with fresh Rules to be laid before the House.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 44 of the Army Act.)

In Section 44 of the Army Act (which relates to scale of punishments by courts-martial) after the word "flogging" in Sub-section (5) thereof there shall be inserted the words "and other than personal restraint by being kept in irons or other fetters," and the words "and such field punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour "in the same Subsection shall be omitted, and the words" and such field punishment may be of the character of hard labour "shall be inserted in lieu thereof.—[Major Hayward.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the House will not be drawn into a long discussion on this subject. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting speech, in which he has depicted in terrible colours the objectionable features of this form of punishment, and I can assure him that it is a punishment repugnant to all those who have had to inflict it or who have been responsible for asking Parliament for the necessary powers to enforce it. At the same time, I need not exaggerate the Regulations which were issued under the Rules of Procedure at the beginning of 1917, and which were made so extremely strict that I think there can be no doubt that this punishment cannot in any sense be considered a cruel one.

Major HAYWARD: Not physically cruel.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a most painful and repulsive sight to see men who are comrades going in and out of the line, fighting one day side by side with officers and comrades, and another day being tied up in this way. But it would be a very great wrong to the Army and its administration to suggest that it is in any way a painful physical experience.

Major HAYWARD: I did not say that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we ought to get that clearly recognised, because the latest Regulations which were issued by my predecessor, in 1917, really reduced the tying to a fixed object to a form rather than to a fact. I have here the Army Council letter, which was written in 1917 on the subject, and it would be a very great pity if it were to be proclaimed, and if the impression should in consequence be formed out of doors, that the officers have been in the custom of inflicting a cruel or barbarous punishment upon the soldiers with whom they have lived on terms happier than those that exist in any Army in the world. At the same time we have a very real difficulty to face in this matter. There are few facilities, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, and as so many Members who have served in the War know, for punishment or anything else in the neighbourhood of the front line. There are no detention barracks, there are no ordinary limits within which men can be confined, and there is very little time. You cannot afford to provide many men to supervise the imposition of any penalty, and there is this driving necessity of war that you must have discipline in face of the enemy. It may well be that this punishment has been used in cases in which it certainly ought not to have been. But I am afraid, if the course which is now recommended had been taken during the War, that it might have led to a greater number of death sentences. I am afraid that if there had been no provision of this kind it is possible that the final penalty might have had to have been exacted in certain cases, as an example to others, rather than as a requital for a really serious breach of the military code.
Therefore, while I am with my hon. and gallant Friend in this matter, I think we should proceed in an orderly fashion. I
think that the time has come when we should now collect the opinions from the Army, officers of various ranks—and not only from the commissioned ranks—and we should see in what way we can revise the rules of procedure so as to see whether any effective substitute can be provided. I do not prejudge this at all. My own feeling is the fact that making a man turn out with his arms and accoutrements, and march smartly up and down under the orders of a drill sergeant for a fixed period once or twice a day would be more desirable, and more of a deterrent for the ordinary man than this degrading punishment inflicted as it is, without the slightest approach to physical suffering, at the present time. That is the opinion I have formed. I should like to carry with us the general opinion of those responsible for maintaining discipline in the Army. Therefore, if it will be agreeable to the Committee, I will give an undertaking that we will institute forthwith a series of inquiries to obtain the opinion of the military authorities in France, here, and in other theatres, with a view to seeing if a substitute can be devised for this form of punishment without impairing the means by which discipline is maintained, and without leaving us with possibly the danger of being drawn, under certain circumstances in another war, into a more free infliction of the death penalty than has been the case in this War. I would suggest that there is no reason why there should be any delay. I will make these inquiries, and see what Amendments can be made to the rules of procedure. Before the end of the present Session the Army Estimates must be put down again in the ordinary course. I think we require another Vote for money, and it will then be open to my hon. and gallant Friend to raise the matter, and we shall have an opportunity of presenting a final, considered opinion to the Committee. I think that is a course which should induce my hon. Friends to allow this Bill now to proceed, and not to ask us to commit ourselves to a departure of this kind which I, like him, would be very anxious to take, before we have had an opportunity of hearing what those who are responsible for the well-being and good order of our Army think about it in view of the experience they have derived in the present War.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I think the whole Committee is indebted to my hon.
and gallant Friend for the temperate and well-reasoned manner in which he has brought forward this Amendment. I can well imagine that the earlier part of the remarks of the Secretary of State for War might very well have been just the same sort of remarks and arguments which were addressed to the House in those days when flogging in the Army was discussed. But I very gladly welcome the tone as well as the matter of the concluding part of his speech. I quite recognise that although there is an Armistice in force at present, the condition of our armies, and indeed the condition of the beligrant countries, is still a dangerous one, and it would be very easy in this House, and outside it, to make speeches and to foment an agitation which, however well founded, might have an effect which none of us really intend. That I recognise, and we must carry that in our, minds, with a sense of responsibility in discussing a matter of this kind, carrying as it does the sentiment and feeling of sympathy of every right minded man, no matter in what part of the House he sits. The Secretary of State for War has made a suggestion and, for the information of my right lion. Friend (Mr. Adamson), who has just come in, and who, I know, takes a deep interest in it, I may just repeat it as I understand it. The suggestion was this, that the Secretary of State for War would take the earliest, opportunity—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.

Sir D. MACLEAN: —immediately of garnering the opinion not only of officers of high rank but also of non-commissioned officers. He said that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Sir D. MACLEAN: And I will assume there would be no harm at all in getting the opinion also of men in the ranks. Why not? The men in the ranks to-day include men who are of the highest education and who have occupied civilian positions equal certainly to the majority of those of us who are Members of this House. An inquiry of that kind, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, should be immediately held. The result of the inquiry would be taken into immediate consideration by the War Office authorities. He further suggests that he would let us know immediately he is in a position to inform the House of Commons what the result of that is. That being so, he would then quite naturally ask that the Vote should be put
down upon one of the days to which we are entitled, when we could discuss the whole question again.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Signified assent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is quite obvious then, the House being, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman woud wish it to be, in a condition freely to express its opinion on the matter, and to carry its opinion to a definite conclusion if necessary, would be able to say whether, in its judgment, this should be continued. The House, after all, is the master even of the Army Council. I would like to make that quite clear. This House and this Parliament is the master of every Department in this State, whatever it is, Army, Navy, Civil Service, and that is a most important matter which we should never lose sight of. Such an inquiry as that, such a consideration as that, such an opportunity as that to this House being made available—I do not know how long it would take, but I should say it ought not to exceed a month or six weeks—then, so far as I am concerned, and my hon. Friends behind me, I should feel it certainly not within my ideas of one's responsibility to press this matter to a Division.

Earl WINTERTON: I only rise for the purpose of observing that I think a good many members of the Committee beside myself heard with great pleasure the words at the commencement of the speech of the Leader of the Liberal party. He drew attention to the fact that we are living in a time of great disturbance, in which it is very necessary not to do or say anything in this House or outside which would foment suspicion in the minds of the public, and not to do anything to make the duties of the Government harder than they are. I was very pleased to hear that, and I only regret he did not vote for the Conscription Bill the other day.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am sorry I did not have the pleasure of hearing the statement of the Secretary of State for War. I shall not attempt to answer it, but I am quite pleased to hear that he is prepared to have an inquiry into the question of field punishment No. 1. As the Committee are aware, we have an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with the subject now under discussion, and our intention was that by the terms of that Amendment we would secure the complete abolition of field punishment No. 1. At the same time, I
am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has so far met the feelings of the Committee as to be prepared to set up a Committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say set up a Committee, but get materials for inquiry.

Mr. ADAMSON: Quite. I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity, in his inquiries, of obtaining the opinions of the men as well as of the officers. This is a punishment which affects the men more seriously than the officers. It is applicable in the case of the men, and I understand that it is not applicable in the case of the officers. I hope that inquiries will be made as to the opinion of the soldiers as well as of the officers.

Major HAYWARD: I do not propose to quarrel with the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown a sympathetic attitude towards the whole of this question. My first doubt was as to whether he could make any alteration without the Army Act being amended, but I find it can be done, and that the Regulations can be amended, though I am afraid that the Act does rather limit him to some extent, because it says that such punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or hard labour. I hope that my right hon. Friend will get such advice that he will be able to exclude the personal restraint and rely on the hard labour Clause. His views as to that coincide entirely with the views of a general whom I had in mind, when he said he thought that field punishment No. 2 might be made much more severe. My right hon. Friend should make a particular point of getting the opinions of the regimental officers who are absolutely working with and commanding the men. They, after all, know more about what soldiers feel and think than anybody else. In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which I welcome most warmly, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE—(Appeals.)

After Section 42 of the Army Act, the following Section 43 (a) be inserted—

(a) Where any officer or soldier after his complaint has been inquired into under Section 42 or Section 43 of the Act, and the decision thereon has been communicated to him and where such officer or soldier still considers that he has not had the redress to which he may consider himself entitled,
1296
such officer on soldier may appeal to the military Court of Appeal and such Court shall examine into such complaint and shall issue its finding accordingly and forward the same to the Army Council, who shall communicate such finding to the complainant, and shall take such steps as are necessary for giving full redress to the complainant in respect of the wrong complained of in so far as the finding of the military Court of Appeal directs.
(b) A military Court of Appeal, consisting of five, shall be appointed by His Majesty, of whom three shall form a quorum. Two of such members shall be military officers, two shall be persons not holding any official position under the Crown, and one shall be one of His Majesty's judges of the High Court of Justice.—[Sir Ivor Philipps.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move
That the Clause be read a second time.
We have given to all criminals the right of appeal to a Court of Appeal. I submit that it is much more essential to give such an appeal in the case of the Army than in that of any of the other Courts in the land. For this reason: in other Courts the individual who is brought up to be tried by the Court is unknown to the Court. He belongs to a different trade or profession. The Court comes to the subject quite fresh.
Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod having come with a message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER: reported the Royal Assent to

Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

(Sir E. COENWALL in the Chair.).

NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeals.)

Sir I. PHILIPPS: At the moment I wag interrupted I was trying to point out to the Committee that it is more necessary
for soldiers to have a Court of Appeal to which they can bring their cases than for the man in civil life, because in the Army each case in turn goes up from one rank to another—from the brigadier to the major general, and so on up to the Army Council, and there is a great tendency, naturally, for the same view to prevail throughout the different ranks in the same profession. In my own experience I have felt the necessity for some such Court as this military Court of Appeal. It is very difficult, however, for the outsider to know how necessary it is, but if that could be judged by the number of letters I have received each year when I have brought this matter forward from officers and men who feel that they have a grievance, the necessity is proved to be very great. One of the great proofs of the need for this Court is that having the Court would remove the feeling of grievance which now undoubtedly prevails. The Army Council is a pure autocracy. There is nothing beyond it. My right hon. Friend now the Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Macpherson) last year told us we could go to the Crown. Shortly afterwards I had a document presented to me which described this procedure. It was a case in which an officer did appeal to the Crown and in the end the Secretary of State wrote to him exactly the same letter as was written before the case went to the Crown, so that there really was proved to be no appeal beyond the Army Council.
We have had two cases during the War in which by special Act of Parliament Courts have been set up to overrule the Army Council. In those cases the Army Council were found to be in the wrong, and in one case general officers of high rank were severely censured. These are the only two cases the public have had before them during the War, but it is a very bad average. We can only base our case on what we know, and there is no doubt to my mind that there are a large number of cases in which, if an appeal could be made to an outside body, better justice would be administered than is today. I believe, too, it would be of great assistance to the Army Council to have such a body. It is difficult to bring forward cases, but if my right hon. Friend will only call for the last hundred cases of appeal to the Army Council and pick out one of them, I think he would be very doubtful whether, even in that case, it would not have been better to have gone to
a Court of Appeal. It was said last year it would mean all the evidence being gone over again. Does the Court of Appeal in civil cases go through the evidence again? No such proposal was put forward by me. I took it that what the French call a dossier would be sent to the Court of Appeal. Now if a man appeals under Clause 42 of the Army Act the Army Council is the final arbiter of his destinies, and if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Army Council, I suggest he should have the right to appeal to an Appeal Court consisting of two military officers, two civilian gentlemen, and a judge of the High Court. If such a Court of Appeal were set up it would give great confidence to the public and to the men in the Army, and at the same time it would relieve the Army Council of a great deal of stigma which at present attaches to it in a great number of these cases.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not expect me on behalf of the Government to accept—

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I thought such a Clause would have been in the new Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not expect me to accept the important proposal he has just commended to the Committee. I do not see how the business of the Army could be carried ion on the basis of his proposition. The Army Council under the Crown is the highest body concerned with the discipline and efficiency of the Army, and what my hon. and gallant Friend proposes is that those who have to examine into these cases and who have given their opinions after most careful consideration, and, possibly, after the pleasure of the Crown has been expressed, should have those opinions reviewed at the instance of one who is discontented with the state of affairs and that the case should be remitted to another Court which is to review the whole question and if necessary over-ride and reverse the decision and censure the high military authorities that have come to the conclusion. We cannot agree to procedure of that kind. When one is dealing with a question of law or a question of criminal justice a Court of Appeal is of the greatest value. I know when I was Home Secretary the Court of Criminal Appeal had just been introduced and it proved to be an enormous advantage in all matters affecting questions
of law or the guilt or innocence of accused persons regarding specific charges. But when you come to matters of opinion, matters where only precedent can guide, these certainly are not matters which you can properly deal with in a tribunal such as the hon. Member suggests. You must stand or fall by the opinions of those who are responsible to decide. The kind of cases which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind are cases which are not questions of guilt or innocence, but are cases where a man's efficiency has been called into question.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: No.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Or questions whether the knowledge of the individual is such as to make his retention in the Service undesirable. These are questions which do not form the ordinary basis of legal inquiry, and to set up a Court of Appeal to deal with these matters, to take them out of the hands of the Army Council and to have them reviewed by a Court which would have the power to reverse the decision of the Army Council, would have the effect of absolutely paralysing the machinery for the administration of the Army. We certainly could not agree to any such course, and I could not ask members of the Army Council to go into any cases with the certainty that after their opinion had been declared they are to be pilloried before another tribunal. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his proposal. On another occasion perhaps he might present it in a more workable form which would enable some kind of tribunal to be set up which could deal with these matters before the decision of the highest military authorities was obtained. I am not prejudging what our attitude would be in regard to such a proposal, but certainly it will not be open to the fatal defects which obviously attach to the one now before us.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: My right hon. Friend was wrong in suggesting that I was questioning the efficiency of the Army Council. It is, of course, purely a matter of military knowledge.

Colonel YATE: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has taken up such an unfortunate attitude in this matter. He has suggested that the proposal might be put forward in some other form. Will he
himself bring forward a proposal? Will he try to inquire into this matter? There is the very greatest dissatisfaction in the Army. Men feel very much aggrieved in many cases because they have no redress at all. I have had lots of letters in which such cases have been brought to my notice. There was a case occurred last year in which troops were sent out to India in the hot season, and they suffered terribly during the train journey. An unfortunate general officer was turned out of his appointment, although he had nothing whatever to do with this particular administrative act; be was simply turned adrift, and is now unemployed. There ought to be somebody before whom such cases could be laid. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of members of the Army Council. I do not know whether they had that particular general before them or inquired into the case. There must be some Court to which men in such cases can appeal. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consider this question and see whether something cannot be done, so that an officer or man who is aggrieved and who is turned out of his appointment without any redress whatever may have some appeal? At present there is no one to whom he can appeal, except probably the man who ordered him to be deprived of his appointment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will undertake to give the matter consideration. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friends that I make a point of considering any of these matters which are raised in debate, reflecting upon them afterwards, and discussing them with my military advisers. I will certainly discuss this matter with them with a view to seeing whether any machinery can possibly be set up which would lighten the burden now resting on the Army Council, without derogating in any way from their final and supreme authority. I do not say that it is not possible that some machinery may be found, but I cannot hold out any hope at this stage.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The whole object of Section 42 of the Army Act is to obtain justice. That is all we want. I would thank my right hon Friend very much for the way in which he has received the proposal, and I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHEDULE.


Accommodation to be provided.
Maximum price.


Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished
…
…
Sixpence per night.


Breakfast as specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Army Act
Sixpence each.


Dinner as so specified
…
…
One shilling and twopence each.


Supper as so specified
…
…
Fourpence each.


Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat
Sixpence per day.


Stable room and tea pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse
Two shillings and fourpence per day.


Stable room without forage
…
…
Sixpence per day.


Lodging and attendance for officer
…
…
Two shillings per night.


Note.— An officer shall pay for his food.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move, in the fifth paragraph, to leave out the word "sixpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling."
I would point out that for lodging and attendance, candles, vinegar, salt, the use of fire and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating meat, a person who billets a soldier is allowed sixpence a day under this Schedule. That amount has not been altered for many years past and is totally inadequate at the present time. I have a letter here from a lady in my Constituency who keeps a public-house saying that she had twenty soldiers billeted on her for which she was paid 6d. per day per head for all these things. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this matter cannot be taken into consideration, and the sum of sixpence increased to a little more. It may seem a small matter, but is not so small as it appears, because the effect of it is that it makes the Army unpopular and the billeting of soldiers unpopular, and that is a very bad thing for the country.

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I cannot meet my hon. and gallant Friend as I should be glad to do. I cannot think that the grievance is so real as it appears to him, although I am quite certain that some complaints have been made on the insufficiency of the amount that is allowed. On previous occasions on billeting matters there have been the loudest possible complaints, but with regard to this particular point I have had no complaints whatever for months past. I am quite sure that if the grievance were real and widespread I should have heard a great deal more about it. I cannot look upon the case as having been made out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move, in the sixth paragraph, to leave out the words "two shillings and fourpence," and to insert instead thereof the words
sixpence per day and forage at current Government contract prices.
This raises the question of the billeting of horses. The rate of 2s. 4d. a day is inadequate. The cost of 10 lbs. of oats alone is 2s. 3d., the hay would cost another shilling, and the straw a good deal more, so that the total cost would be something in the neighbourhood of 4s. at the present prices, instead of 2s. 4d. a day. I suggest that the figures in the Schedule want looking into. I do not wish to press the Amendment, as I understand the Government do not wish to give way on the matter to-day, but I suggest they should look into it, and alter the rates at some future date.

Mr. FORSTER: I am glad to give the assurance for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks. I will look into this question and see whether or not there is a case to be met

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I wish to ask the House to pass all the stages of a very small Bill which is neces-
sary to remove certain disabilities from which soldiers suffer at the present moment. The Parliamentary Elections (Soldiers) Act, 1847, prohibits soldiers, if they are quartered within two miles of any town in which an election is held,' or a nomination is made, or a poll declared, from leaving barracks on that day except for certain specified purposes. The only purposes for which they are allowed to leave barracks are either to relieve or mount guard, or to register their votes. That Act was passed previously to the Ballot Act, and it will be apparent to the House that it has become completely obsolete. It is not only obsolete, but extremely inconvenient in its present form. In many cases the military work of the day has to be suspended, more particularly if the military headquarters or the Record Offices, or the Pay Offices happen to be situated in the borough, city, or town. I would also like to remind the House that this Bill will only give the same facilities of freedom that have aways been accorded to sailors and, indeed, have never been taken from them. When at the recent election the War Cabinet took upon themselves to suspend the Act they relied upon the House of Commons granting an indemnity if anybody challenged that course. The proposal is to repeal the Act and to make the repeal retrospective to 10th December, which is prior to the date of the polling at the last election. That is the sum total of the small Bill which I ask the House to pass through all its stages.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Pratt.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications, it is expedient—

(1) To authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—

(a) of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds to the Minister of Ways and Communications, of annual
1304
salaries not exceeding one thousand five hundred pounds to the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses as may become payable under such Act;
(b) of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee, to make contributions to pension or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under such Act;
(2) To authorise the creation and issue of securities, with interest to be charged so far as not met out of other sources of revenue on the Consolidated Fund."

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

Leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, the Sitting was suspended until a Quarter-past eight o'clock.

INDEMNITIES.

Lieutenant-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to move: "That this House do now adjourn."
I do so in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the proceedings at the Peace Conference, and to ask for information more especially with regard to the question of indemnities. May I say, first of all, that it is not my wish for a moment to in any way embarrass or hamper the Government, and I feel certain that I am expressing the opinion of those who are interested in this matter when I say that they do not approach this subject in any obstructionist spirit. But we have come to the conclusion that there should be some means—and this is the only means which have been given to us—of bringing pressure to bear, if it is possible to do so, and, anyhow, of forcibly reminding the delegates at the Peace Conference that a large majority of Members of this House are solemnly pledged to their constituents to do everything in their power to exact from Germany the uttermost farthing that the country is able to pay—I mean, of course, to pay subject to reason. In the first place, I have never for a moment doubted, since I gave a minute examination to the assets of the enemy countries, their ability to pay the full Allied war-
bills under certain provisos. I mean provided first, that time should be given for those countries to recuperate and to pay; secondly, that an International Commission should be set up in Berlin in order to collect the money; and, thirdly, that while that International Commission were acting that the chief strategical points of Germany should be occupied by an inter-Allied Army of Occupation, as to which I hope to say a word in a moment. I said that in examining the assets of the enemy countries I had no fear but they could with time discharge the whole of the liabilities. But I hear of very grave doubts, and I am beginning to fear that our delegates at the Peace Conference have been swayed from what I consider to be their bounden duty to this House, and their bounden duty to the country—that is, to exact every farthing from those countries, according to the promise of the Prime Minister, that they can possibly pay.
Also I cannot help feeling some alarm at what I call the subtle, indirect influence of international financiers—I mean the men who will certainly be heavy losers if a just and right and full indemnity were to be placed on Germany, because they have not only money in that country, a great many of them, but they are also largely interested in German concerns and German companies in Peru, Chile, the Argentine, and, indeed, every part of the globe. Those professional money mongers have evidently left no stone unturned in order to prove that the self-vaunted riches of Germany are purely imaginary. May I here give to the House an estimate made in 1914 by Dr. Helfferich, a director of the Deutsche Bank, who stated that the value of the national property, public and private, of Germany was £15,000,000,000, and placed the annual income at £2,000,000,000. That was in 1914, and I see no reason whatever to doubt the accuracy of those figures. I see that those international financiers have done everything possible to prove that the assets of Germany, her great mineral resources, her chemicals, her potash, her great dye factories, are mythical, while I suppose Tier vast and valuable forest lands are all fairy lands, and her coal deposits valued at £2,000,000,000 are fables. Do not let us confuse the issues; do not let us mistake the fables. Those fables are stories woven by those twentieth-century knights of romance. The fables are the excuses made whenever they can be to prove that Germany is able to make next
to no contributions to the Allies' war debts. After all, we know these men. Who are they? They always come forward on the crest of every crisis. They are those anti-English Englishmen who right through the War predicted that Britain, with her hastily-trained conscript Army had not a chance to bring the mighty hosts of Germany to their knees. They are English for profit, but as far as Motherland and as far as patriotism are concerned they are pariahs. Their names, often biblical, they prefer to change, but they are none the less dangerous, and they are people who undoubtedly are using every influence to prove that Germany is on the verge of bankruptcy. I must say that I was astounded the other day by the answer which was given to me by the Leader of the House, when we discussed this matter on the occasion of the Adjournment in a very few minutes a fortnight ago. He seemed to think that neither the Prime Minister nor any responsible Minister of the Crown had ever said that Germany or the enemy countries could make any large contribution towards our war debts. Surely the speeches of the Prime Minister must be known to him, and also the speeches of his colleagues. May I read one speech, or rather an extract from one speech, made, I believe, at Bristol by the Prime Minister two days before the election? Speaking to the electors of Bristol he said, and I am perfectly certain he was sincere:
Now I come to the second question I mean to talk about and that is the question of indemnity. Who is to foot the bill. [A Voice: "Germany!"] I am going to talk to you quite frankly about this. By the jurisprudence of every civilised country in the world in any lawsuit the loser pays. It is not a question of vengeance, it is a question of justice. It means that the judge and the Court have decided that one party is in the wrong. He has challenged judgment. By the law of every civilised country in the world the party who is guilty of the wrong pays the costs. There is absolutely no doubt about the principle. What we hope for in the future is that in dealings between nations the same principle shall be established as in dealings between individuals—the same principles of right and wrong. If you do that it is inevitable that the nation that does the wrong and challenges a law suit to determine it must pay the costs.
A Voice: In full.
Mr. Lloyd George: I am coming to that. Certainly, in full, if they have got it. But, if you do not mind, listen to what I have got to say to you right through to the end.
He proceeds to emphasise this, but I want to be perfectly fair to the Prime Minister. In every speech that he made he never
pretended Chat he was certain that Germany could pay in full. He always said that Germany could and should pay to the fullest extent of her capacity to pay. That is all that any reasonable person could ask. Nobody in their senses would ask Ministers to saddle a country with a debt which they would never be able to discharge, but what I want to know is what has happened to make the Leader of the House, and other Ministers, depart from their repeatedly stated pledges. The phraseology of the Prime Minister was not in the least ambiguous, but concise and clear. It was not one of those cryptic, obscure, veiled utterances which the right hon. Gentleman himself sometimes uses when he wants to convey one thing to the House without being detected of any terminological inexactitude. There was only one interpretation to be put on this by the man in the street, and that was, "If you want Germany to pay to the utmost limit of her capacity, you have only one thing to do, and that is to send the Prime Minister back to the Peace Conference and to send the Coalition Government back to the House of Commons with a direct mandate to that effect from the people of this country." I believe that the Prime Minister is perfectly sincere, but I am not so certain about the sincerity of some of his colleagues, nor am I certain that he is being thoroughly well advised, and that is one of the reasons why I have brought this matter forward, because I think it is right that he should know that in exacting the uttermost farthing that Germany can pay he has behind him, if not the whole-hearted support of this House, the support of 400 Members pledged to get every penny that these rountries can pay. I sincerely hope that we are not in this matter truckling to America. We have had enough placating of America, and I do hope that our delegates are in no way being influenced by the higher philanthropy of that great philosopher President Wilson, that great philosopher who is able to bear with such perfect equanimity and such splendid fortitude the financial embarrassments of every country but his own. At the request of the Leader of the House I sent him the other day, and I took the liberty to send it also to every Member, a short memorandum, in which I endeavoured to show that if we compelled them to do so, Germany and the enemy countries could in time be made to pay the whole of the War bill. There are far
more important questions before the House than whether or not my figures are absolutely accurate, but I did think that this might serve as a point of departure from which at an opportune moment the assets of Germany and her ability to pay could be discussed. But the point that I want to emphasise is this, that in view of the conflicting opinions as to her ability to pay, the fact of whether right or wrong is on the side of the pessimists or the optimists does not matter. Surely it is obvious that at a moment when Germany has turned her Constitution upon its apex, when the poison of Bolshevism is permeating that country, at a moment when even the well-ordered minds of her people have no man to look to as a leader, surely that would not be the moment to decide when and how and how much Germany can contribute towards the Allies War bill. But just as that is not the moment, so I say it is the moment for the British Empire to formulate her full claims and to say, "Here is the bill in full," to lay it on the peace table, and then to enter into ways and means of getting it.
Germany may plead bankruptcy. She may do so with some right to-day. I think she has done so before, but if the House will look upon Germany for a moment as in the position of a vast and rich estate, momentarily crippled and unable to meet her obligations, but possessed of immense resources and of property which if developed intelligently cannot fail to be of great potential value; if they will do that, I think it will be perfectly right for us to present the bill, as I say, in full. How do we get the money? Let us, as I said at the beginning, appoint an International Commission, and let the commissioners come in as receivers or administrators of this estate. It would be the duty of these commissioners to allocate and apportion certain specific assets to the repayment of the respective creditor countries, and, of course, they would be warned against killing the bird that laid the golden eggs. It would be the quintessence of futility to impose on Germany any taxation which would impede her commercial development, but in six or even eight years it will be time to consider whether Germany can discharge the whole of her liabilities or not, but whatever diminution we make, whatever we let her off at short of 20s. in the pound, should be regarded as an act of grace on our part. It
may be said that Germany will never consent to this, but I take it that this is a peace by dictation, and not a peace by negotiation, and I think a few words from Marshal Foch would make Germany alter her opinion if there was any recalcitrancy. As I mentioned also in that little memorandum, side by side with the establishment of an international commission it is essential that we should put an Army of Occupation in the field. But that Army need not be a big one. It might have to be a certain size at first, but when law and order are restored a very small Army would be required, especially if two salient facts can be relied upon—first, that Germany is going to be relieved of her own army and navy, and, secondly, that she will be deprived of every big gun, every war aeroplane, all the commissariat transport, and different engines and paraphernalia of war necessary for moving and manœuvring an offensive army of 50,000 men.
In conclusion, do let us remember that this question is one of paramount importance, one upon which all other questions hang. The question of whether we are able to give adequate pensions to the relatives of our gallant dead, whether we can give our soldiers and our sailors decent attentions, whether the State will be able to aid agriculture, whether we will be able to subsidise certain tottering industries—all these questions depend upon whether the British taxpayer or the German taxpayer is put into that intolerable financial position which certain members of the Government said would never be the case. If one of the two countries have to be in that intolerable financial position for fifty years, I pray God that that country may be Germany and not England. Do not, above all things, in this case let our sentiments run riot. Do let us remember the past. Do let us remember what Germany has been, what Germany has done to us, the way they have treated our prisoners—I do not want to harrow up the feelings of the House—but the poor and starved prisoners, and the attempt to put our prisonrs to death. Do not let us forget that even then we were dealing with a subtle, cunning, crafty race, who for years have been looking upon British ascendancy in commerce and British supremacy upon the sea as the only bar to their unbridled ambitions. If we allow Germany the chance of completely recuperating, if we allow our pity and sentiment to run riot, as sure as I stand here that
country will never rest until she has-ground us underfoot. Let us never give her the chance.

Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLL: I am afraid my political career will be a very short one, inasmuch as I promised the electors in my Constituency that I was being returned to support the Prime Minister in his demand that Germany should pay the War bill. If he fails to exact the very uttermost amount of the bill I shall have to send in my resignation. I had no Parliamentary ambitions until the war-cry went throughout the land to support the Prime Minister in making Germany pay for the War. Then I came into the arena. I fought one of my oldest and best friends, and I am very glad that I beat him so that I might be able to support the Prime Minister. And here I am! I shall be very disappointed, indeed, if when the Prime Minister returns from Prance we hear that he has consented to any reduction of the bill. I had intended to read from the speech of the Prime Minister at Bristol, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman in front of me has anticipated me. I know, however, that in this country most people have very short memories. We are inclined to forget, all too soon, the horrors of this late War, and for what Germany is responsible. Very few people realise that, reckoned in dead-weight, Germany with her submarines sunk 23,737,080 tons of shipping. Ought she not to be made to pay for them? Seventeen thousand men of the Mercantile Marine—of whom we have heard too little—lost their lives, sunk by order of Count Luxembourg, with instructions to leave no trace behind! Have we forgotten that? That ought to come home, not only to this House, but to every man, woman, and child in this country. Have we forgotten the Lusitania? or the "Belgian Prince," where forty men were told to take off their lifebelts on the deck of the submarines, and then the brutes in control of the submarines submerged and drowned those men? Can we forget that? Sailors-cannot!
Again, the Merchant Seamen's League has sworn that they will not trade with Germany; that they will neither carry to nor bring from Germany anything in the shape of commodities or cargo; that they will never sail with a German until reparation is made and compensation paid' to those who have been left behind. These are serious, too serious questions. Again, remember the hospital ships. Are we to
forget those? If we do, we all ought to be very much ashamed of ourselves. Germany should be made to pay if it takes fifty years. She will and can pay. I contend that this great Empire is strong enough to stand alone and to make her pay. It may be spread over many years. The great financiers, of which there are many in this House, can tell us the best means of making her pay. But pay she must. I never made a speech in my life, and I do not intend to break that record to-night; but I do want to impress upon the House, and upon the Government, as much as ever I possibly can, the necessity of coming to no quick and final settlement of this war indemnity without the Prime Minister realising that if this country does not get that indemnity, that they will want to know the reason why. And the life of the Government, I contend, will be a very short one.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: The vast majority of Members of this House who are, I believe, determined that Germany shall pay, should feel grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for securing this opportunity for a discussion of this subject. I say that because, while it is asserted that events are marching quickly forward in Paris, it is not, to my mind, at all certain that they are marching Forward to what four months ago we should have considered a satisfactory peace. To-day, when the Conference is being conducted with a secrecy unsurpassed in the history of peace conferences, it might be asked why one should have formed that opinion. To my mind there are omens and signs. I asked the Leader of the House the day before yesterday whether the amount of indemnity to be exacted from the enemy countries had been arrived at. It has been so stated in Paris. I asked him whether that was so, and he said it was not so. I wonder what his reply would have been if I had asked him whether the question of indemnities had been discussed and no agreement had been arrived at as to what amounts should be allotted to the various countries, or what his reply would have been if I had asked him whether the question of indemnities had been discussed and no agreement had been arrived at as to the amount that was to be exacted from Germany? I think if he had been inclined to answer me he would have had to say that there
was a reasonable ground for such a belief. I think, further, that if he had been making full confession he might have had to add that there was some likelihood of the question of indemnities, as apart from reparation, not figuring in the preliminary peace terms—terms which are promised now every Monday and expected every Saturday.
The really important point which this discussion ought to elicit from the Government is, Do they still adhere to the pledge given by the Prime Minister that Germany should be made to pay the cost of the War to the limit of her capacity, or is Paris to-day dallying with the new idea of being moderate in the demands it is going to make on enemy countries? I ask that question because a very remarkable interview appeared in a reputable London newspaper on Monday evening. The interview had taken place in Paris on Sunday, and, according to the writer, it was an interview with a high authority who was able to give what he said could be taken as the authentic British view, and he added it was fully shared by America, as to the sort of treaty now being prepared. Later on in this interview the writer refers to the views put forward as being those of one of the most distinguished British authorities, and he expresses his regret that he cannot give the views set forth by this authority their full weight and significance by lifting them from the anonymity in which they are shrouded.
He said the diplomatic instrument—the preliminary peace terms now being drawn up—must be essentially moderate. The interviewer underlines the word "moderate" and says that "moderate" is the word that the high authority kept on insisting upon. "Indemnities to the full" said the interviewer. "No," said the distinguished authority "we must be moderate. We shall get something. I think it will be something worth having, but certainly the question of indemnities, in the sense of going beyond the mere repairing of material damage, is not even posed." That is what the high authority says, whoever he is. Just let us get that into our minds for a moment. Here is a gentleman said to be representing one of the distinguished British authorities in Paris who is able to give us the authentic British view, stating nearly five months after the Armistice, and at a time when preliminary peace terms are being finally drafted and prepared, that the question of indemnities
in the sense of going beyond mere reparation for material damage is not even posed.
He goes on in the latter portion of the interview to say that it is apparent from a close examination of all the facts that the talk about Germany paying to the utmost of her capacity must be abandoned. This high authority gives his reason for saying so. He says,
Obviously, Germany cannot pay in gold. She has only accumulated £120,000,000. She cannot pay in goods because that would rob our own workpeople of their livelihood. Neither can she give us raw materials to any extent because we have to consider the obvious effect of depriving Germany of her very means of subsistence.
Finally, this high distinguished authority says:
Certainly there will be some disappointment, but it is inevitable.
I think that is a very remarkable document, which demands some attention from the Leader of the House. I do not know who the high and distinguished authority is, but I am certain of this, that the "Westminster Gazette," in which the interview appeared, and which is a journal of considerable reputation, would not have published the article unless it had been privately informed by its correspondent that the gentleman interviewed was in fact speaking on behalf of a high and distinguished authority, an authority which the "Morning Post" yesterday and to-day say they have no great difficulty in recognising as none other than the Prime Minister. That, to me, is unthinkable, and I dismiss it at once, because, if that were so, it is strange that there should not be one word in the interview about justice, the stern, unrelenting justice, we were going to exact, and not a word about the quotation which my hon. and gallant Friend made about the loser having to pay, and to pay to the utmost. It would be still more remarkable to me if this interview in any way represented the views of the Prime Minister, because at the Queen's Hall, just before the election, the Prime Minister said:
It must be a just peace, a sternly just peace. If it is to be an easy peace it will not be just. An easy peace will admit of the renewal of war.
Having regard to that statement, I refuse to believe that the Prime Minister is the distinguished authority in question, but I think, considering what British national sentiment on this question of indemnities is, and remembering the election pledges of nine-tenths of the Members of this
House on which they were returned, I think we are entitled to have an assurance from the Leader of the House that there is no weakening of the original intention of the Government to exact to the utmost from enemy countries the full cost of the War. Germany caused the War deliberately, and to-day, just at the conclusion of hostilities, no one, in my opinion, can doubt that to whatever extent the enemy can pay it is right and proper that she should pay. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in replying, may say, "No, there is no weakening in the Government desire to exact all they can from the enemy. We have been going into detail in this matter, or at least Lord Cunliffe has." It is an extraordinary fact that Lord Cunliffe is always the financial adviser of the Government. Lord Cunliffe's Commission has gone deeply into this question, and he is the director of the Bank of England, and he might even be the distinguished authority who was interviewed. He is not only the director of the Bank of England, but he is also a member of a great firm of bill brokers and bill discounters.
My right hon. Friend may say, "Lord Cunliffe and his Commission have gone deeply into this question, and they are veering round to the conclusion that it is a very difficult matter to get a large indemnity from Germany without hurting her or without hurting ourselves." My right hon. Friend may reply, like the distinguished authority that I have already quoted, "Supposing Germany refuses your conditions and becomes Bolshevik. Supposing actively or passively she opposes all that you put forward." My right hon. Friend may answer like the distinguished authority—I hope he will not, and I do not think he will—but if he does, my answer to all these fears and supposition would be to say, as was said by my hon. and gallant Friend, "Let us first of all, without fear and certainly without favour, determine the amount of our full bill, and let us present it to the enemy." Germany must be made to recognise her debt. If she cannot pay it in gold, or with dividend yielding investments in securities existing outside her own country—and that certainly she cannot do—she can pay it, I am certain, by services or commodities spread over many years. You may describe her as an insolvent debtor, but she remains a debtor by the simple fact that she has recognised her debt. It seems to me that at this
juncture it is not our business or the business of our delegates in Paris to decide how much Germany can pay. That is Germany's affair. If there is imposed upon Germany the obligation, say, of raising £600,000,000 a year—I only give it as a figure—this country last year raised nearly £900,000,000 in taxation—for the purpose of paying the indemnity, it is not at all necessary at this moment for the Allies to consider in what manner Germany should do this. Let the German Government settle that for themselves.
9.0 P.M.
My right hon. Friend may say—I am certain that the distinguished authority would say—"Supposing Germany did arrange to raise annually so vast a sum for the payment of her war debt, the indemnity could only pass from one nation to another in the form of exports, and that could not happen without inflicting considerable damage upon our own trade and commerce." I had imagined in my innocence that all these matters had been thought out when the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend were assuring the country that Germany would be made to pay. I had thought them out for myself, not I confess in any great or deep detail, but with sufficient clearness to make it apparent to me that there was a reasonable possibility over a number of years of obtaining a very substantial sum towards the whole cost of the War. If I might detain the House for a moment or two, I would like to say how the situation appeared to me. The Prime Minister, in his speech at Bristol, put the Allied war bill at £24,000,000,000. It seemed to me, to be just, sternly just as he advised us, that you might from that amount deduct the value to be placed upon the forfeited German Colonies, upon Turkey's forfeited interests in Asia, and upon Alsace-Lorraine, at least so far as the money Germany has expended there since 1870. For instance, the value of the potassium mines in the region of Mulhausen which she developed ought to pass to her credit. I am talking now of what I think would be a just and fair settlement of the war bill. There would be a certain value, perhaps a very large value, to be placed upon the Saar Valley, the exploitation of which France demands, and which I understand she is to get under suitable guarantees. If you make Germany restore the industrial plants that she has destroyed in France and in Belgium, the
work and material that they represent should also go to her credit side. Then there is the matter of the Mercantile Marine, the greater portion of which could be taken over and ought to be taken over. All these matters ought to be valued and go to the credit side of the account which you would open with Germany and the enemy Powers. I have not been able to work out the values. I have not the detailed information available to permit me to be able to work out the value of these various things. It is a matter for the international commission which my hon. and, gallant Friend opposite said should be appointed. But all these credits, when they had been fixed, would mean a substantial reduction from the £24,000,000,000.
What is left to meet the remainder of the Bill? Let me say what I had in mind when I insisted at the election, not in my own Constituency but in other people's constituencies, as I did, that Germany should be made to pay to the limit of her capacity. I thought that Germany might be called upon to hand over her foreign investments, which are estimated at £1,000,000,000 or £1,250,000,000. Some people place them as high as £2,000,000,000. I thought, also, that the ex-Kaiser's personal property and estates—his estates are of immense value—and the estates of all the other ex-kings and ex-princely personages in Germany, could be confiscated and the money derived therefrom go to a further reduction of the account. Then beyond this and among other things which might be given in detail there are the coal, the timber, and the other raw materials in which Germany is rich and which under international control could be drawn on to guarantee the repayment of the bill. Just one word about Germany's coal resources. She has considerably more coal than all the other Continental States combined. She has more than twice as much coal as the United Kingdom, and she has ten times a much coal as France. Her Westphalian area is the richest of all her coal areas, and in that district in 1913 she produced nearly 90,000,000 tons, and it is estimated, even if the production were increased to 400,000,000 tons per year, that, theoretically, the field would last 350 years. It seems to me only logical that Germany should pay part of her indemnity to the Allies by drawing upon her superabundant stores of coal. It may be urged that English coal-owners and miners would object to German coal replacing English
coal in neutral markets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought that would be put forward. But let me point out that, although British mining interests might object, and although they might conceivably suffer from large exports of German goods sent to Allies, or sent to neutrals against the Allies account, this nation would be a gainer, inasmuch as it would obtain a large proportion of indemnity from coal, and would be preserving the rapidly decreasing stores of coal here.
The same with regard to potash. The German store is so vast that it cannot absolutely be estimated. Its production has increased from 2,000 tons in 1861 to 10,000,000 tons in 1911, and it has been estimated by experts that in potash alone Germany could pay an enormous amount towards the War debt. It was from these and other raw materials—beet sugar is another product—that I saw the possibility of drawing vast sums from the kinds of commodities we had to import towards the reduction and the repayment of the Allies' war bill, and I have only gone into these details now—briefly sketching them, as I have done—because I do not want it to be imagined that I supported the cry "Germany must pay!" without having some general idea of how it might be achieved. It is not for a private Member to formulate, or to enter into, minute details as to the conditions under which the Government should carry out their pledge of making the enemy pay to the utmost of her capacity. That is the business of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in Paris. It would be the business, as I imagine, of an international commission, which ought to be set up the moment we have presented, and obtained, the recognition of our full debt. But it is the business of a private Member, I think, in view of all that has been happening, and all to which I have referred, to ask from the Government an assurance that there has been no weakening in the declared policy of the Government to obtain from the enemy the full cost of the War, or, if there is a weakening on that point, to ask that the reasons and the causes for it should be stated here in full open discussion before the final settlement is arrived at in the secrecy of the mansion which President Wilson inhabits in Paris.
One word more. There has been in certain newspapers a great deal of talk about Germany becoming Bolshevik, if her credit is impaired, her trade injured, or if she
is overburdened with debt. What about Britain if the peace settlement fails to redeem the pledges of the Government, and leaves Britain with a depleted Treasury, staggering under a load of taxation twice as heavy as Germany? I refuse to believe in any such possibility. But if it should happen that the Government has veered round, and are seeking to be moderate to Germany, I say you can only be moderate to Germany at the expense of this country, and at the expense of all our Allies, and to be moderate to Germany after the crimes she has committed, after the misery and ruin she has brought upon the world, would be to belie every pledge given by the Prime Minister, and by every one of his colleagues.

Mr. MACMASTER: We received an assurance from the Government recently that there was no weakening on the part of the Government, and that they intended to insist on the payment of our claims to the utmost capacity of the enemy. I will not pretend to say that at this moment there is a weakening on the part of the Government, but I say that to make a statement before this House that there is no weakening on the part of the Government to insist on the payment of our claims to the utmost capacity of the enemy does not meet adequately the situation that is presented to us. Now, the notice on the Paper relates to two things: One is with regard to the indemnities or the reparation that can be obtained, and the other relates to the proceedings at the Conference itself, so that both these subjects are under consideration. To-day I have had the advantage of a short conversation with a leading financial man on the Continent, and I asked him what people on the Continent think about the War situation. He said, "I will tell you frankly what they think, and what I have heard over and over again. What we hear there is this: That the Entente has won the victory and lost the peace." With regard to losing the peace, I do not pretend to say that we have entirely lost the possibilities of a peace, but what I do say in that connection is that every day of delay has been an advantage to Germany and our other enemies and a disadvantage to us, that we are losing consistently by the delay, and that the delay is continuing to strengthen the position of those with whom we have to negotiate for a peace.
As regards the question so very ably dealt with by my hon. Friend who has
just addressed the House with regard to, the assets of Germany, all I would say is this: The Government is in a far better position to tell the capacity of Germany to pay than we are. I freely concede that. But what about this international commission? Was there not appointed by the Conference some Commission to investigate the assets? What investigation has been made, and what do we know of the results of their investigation? I hope the Leader of the House will tell us what is known—and definitely known—with regard to the actual capacity of Germany to pay. With regard to that, without going into details, because I wish to be very brief, as there are others more capable of speaking on the subject than I am, I say we must beware of accepting German statements. We cannot forget that within as recent a time as one month before the collapse of the military situation in Germany, the German Chancellor was threatening us that if we did not accept the terms that were then offered, we would take upon ourselves the responsibility of carrying on the War. That was all bluff. They were on the point of collapse, and to-day we have to ask ourselves whether this cry of poverty on the part of Germany is not a deliberate piece of German propaganda suggesting poverty in order that they may get off better.
The Leader of the House the other day gave us an illustration which in commercial and financial life may be very apt, namely, that if you had had to deal with a debtor who was going into the Bankruptcy Court or against whom an order was being made it was very much better that you should come to terms with him and make a composition and take as much as you can reasonably get, having regard to his assets. That is quite true, but it must be remembered that under normal circumstances the debtor has the watchful eye of the Official Receiver upon him and the business man has a good opportunity of seeing whether a fair return is made of his assets. No general statement and no off-hand statement can be accepted as regards the assets of Germany. It was shown clearly by the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Kennedy Jones) that there are immense potentialities in respect of German assets. Seeing all that this country has suffered in treasure, and in blood, the enormous debt which the nation has incurred, and which will hang like a dead
weight on our necks and on the necks of our children and our grand-children, and the great slaughter of men that has taken place, we should not be too mealy-mouthed in regard to our treatment of Germany. What better application could be made of their money than to pay us in instalments for fifty years, and by their paying these instalments you would prevent those military preparations which Germany will certainly make if she gets the opportunity of recuperating and seeking revenge in future.
In regard to the proceedings at the Peace Conference, I think they have been very dilatory. We do not know all the difficulties, but we do know that it is perfectly obvious that a number of the delays that have occurred in the Conference must have arisen from differences amongst the Allies themselves. If they had been in better agreement and more prompt they would have been ready to prepare their bills and present their terms to Germany before the lapse of four and a half months. Other things have caused delay, and notwithstanding my respect for the American President and the American nation I must be perfectly frank and say that I am convinced that a great deal of the delay has been caused by the manner in which the League of Nations has been cast into the arena. I have nothing to say against the scheme of a League of Nations, but in certain respects the associations with which it is proposed to effect it are, in my view, impracticable. The immediate problem before us and before the world is the attainment of peace between the nations that are at war, beween our enemies and ourselves, and what right have we to drag neutrals into consideration of that peace? What right have we, on the other hand, after dragging in neutrals, to say that our enemies who have to pay, should be bound by the conditions that may be imposed by a League so constituted? It seems to me that it is elementary that the question of peace is one thing and the question of the League of Nations is another. If we deal with these questions on proper lines we should settle the terms of peace and conclude peace and instantly thereafter, and in a separate document, put down rules in regard to the League of Nations, and after that is done we and our Allies should go into the League of Nations, and Germany and other enemies should come in later.
To deal with the two things at the same time is to provoke difficulties and to prevent peace. That is the view taken by the American Senators, and it is the view taken by the bulk of legislators in America. It is a very reasonable view. We must also remember that it is the view intimately associated with American politics, and American politics are on a very different basis from our politics. If our King assents to peace it is conclusive, and if we do not like the Government which has advised the Sovereign to conclude peace we have no remedy except one, and that is to turn out the Government. But that is after the event has been consummated. It is very different with the United States of America, because there, under the Constitution, if the terms of peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations are to be dependent upon each other they will come before the United States Senate and no treaty of peace can be concluded without the full assent of the Senate. Therefore, we may very readily find that though they may be willing to conclude peace they are quite unwilling to enter into the Convention in regard to the League of Nations. Already—and I have seen some of the speeches recorded in the Official Reports and we know also from our Press—leading men in America object to the Convention on the ground that it is a transgression of some of their sacred political doctrines or of their traditions, and as the party that is objecting to this has a majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate it is possible that when the Peace Treaty comes before the Senate for approval political considerations may weigh so strongly that both the Peace Treaty and the Covenant may be defeated. Therefore, I think, it is our duty and the duty of our representatives in Paris to endeavour even at this late stage to keep these important considerations separate.
There is another thing which I see is much urged in the United States Press. It is that no treaty can be concluded without "the advice and consent" of the Senate, and I see it urged on the highest authority in the United States that the President has not taken the precaution in the first instance of asking the advice of his Senate. When he returned to the United States a few weeks ago he did not even then ask the advice of his Senate. He has gone off his own bat and has consented to
an arrangement in connection with which he never received the advice of his Senate. That, in all probability, will be urged against the assent of the Senate to the Peace Treaty. I submit that we should endeavour, even at this late hour, to separate the Peace Treaty from the Covenant of the League of Nations. I trust that the Covenant of the League of Nations may prove a reality, but not as depending upon the Peace Treaty, but as something side by side with it which shortly afterwards may be secured, and when we have the Covenant of the League of Nations all the Allies, and all the neutrals who have had nothing to do with the War, may enter it on terms that are just, leaving Germany, Austria, and Turkey to join the League whenever they are ready to repent of their misbehaviour and to give their consent to the maintenance of the peace of the world. The object of the League is to maintain the peace of the world, while the object of the Peace Treaty is to secure peace. They are two distinct things, and the sooner we realise that they are completely separate the better.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I am sure the House was greatly impressed with the sincerity of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion, and I think he spoke to an entirely convinced Chamber as to the necessity of every Member of this House being true to the pledges he gave during the election, that he would support the Government in getting all they could get out of Germany by way of indemnity. But just as he pointed out that it will be a most unfortunate thing for the Government should the country feel that the Government had failed them in not demanding the whole of that amount, so I think it will not be less unfortunate if hopes are raised by speeches in this Chamber which can never be realised. I have sympathised with every speech that has been made. I had hoped that some hon. Members here, who take such a deep interest in this matter, would have been prepared with arguments and facts to enable us to say to the Government, "It is possible for you to do this if you are really in earnest." I do not think the Government does need gingering up in this respect. I absolutely trust the Prime Minister to play a true British part in this matter and to obtain all he can. But what I have risen to ask is that the House should consider this question: Hew
can Germany pay? To say that that is Germany's business and not our business is absolutely futile. If Germany owes us money, surely Germany owes equally, both in morals and in business, to all the other Allies. What, then, is the total sum? I think I should not be putting it above the mark if I said that the bill that ought to be presented to Germany would come to a total of, say, £40,000,000,000. I do not think it is less.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: The Prime Minister in his speech put the probable total at £24,000,000,000.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Very well. I am surprised it is so low, but £24,000,000,000 will do. But I will cut off £16,000,000,000, because we are talking in such big figures that the whole thing is getting ridiculous. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in 1914 a German authority calculated that Germany was worth £15,000,000,000 and that she had an annual income of £2,000,000,000. If she was worth £15,000,000,000 that was when she was a going concern. [An HON. MEMBER: "She will be again !"] Not if what you propose is done, she will never be a going concern. This is a policy by which you are to ruin her with one hand and extract £10,000,000,000 or £24,000,000,000 with the other. I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but at that time Germany was a united people, with the entire population working on an economic basis. What is her capital of £15,000,000,000, in 1914, worth to-day? Where is her £2,000,000,000 a year income? Does anyone suggest that she is at this moment on an economic basis producing anything? [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not say so."] Then how in the world are you going to collect that sum?

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: By putting in an international committee, as administrators and receivers, who know something about the management of a great big country, with tremendous, titanic resources. That is how it would be done, only we should take particular care to see that we should exact nothing for a year or two—indeed, I said for four or six years.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not see how we are going to collect £24,000,000,000. Is it really considered, and is it the idea of the House that, having endured what we have
endured for nearly five years, we really have the purpose of taking over a people of the greatness of Germany—a people of nearly 80,000,000—by putting in a receiver and leaving him there, if need be, for fifty years? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am glad to see that is the idea. I say it is physically impossible, and I say it is morally wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will say why it is morally wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did the electors say?"] The electors have elected us on the assumption that we have common sense enough only to press her to pay what she can pay, and not to talk in this airy way about £24,000,000,000. The first duty of our Government is to stand with all our other Allies in determining to have peace as early as possible, and a settlement that is a final settlement. The idea that we are going to carry on a sort of war, economic or otherwise, for fifty years against an enemy country is, to my mind, an idea of a world in absolute ruin. All the Allies want indemnities paid. We have heard it said, "Let us present the bill." To whom shall we present the bill? To the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Germany? His position is not a very secure one. We are told that there was 100 millions in gold. That has all come out month by month in buying food. [An HON. MEMBER: "An international commission!"] An international commission composed of statesmen who find it difficult to manage their own countries, and who propose to add to their difficulties and to the world's difficulties by administering Germany! It is to my mind a most incredible proposal. Then we hear about the coal mines. The proposal is, "Germany has coal: make the German workmen hew the coal and send it abroad for our own credit, or send it here for our use." When the hon Member suggested it, and said that the mine-owners and miners would like it, I replied that I expected that. We should be getting an indemnity paid while we should be ruining our own mining industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] This talk of coal and potash and other deposits is really not talk in business terms to-day. The amount of potash which has a current value is the amount that can be used at a given moment. You cannot hew a thousand million pounds' worth of coal or potash because, if it is worth that, you have got to have a customer for it, and all the stuff
required from year to year is being produced at present to meet our economic requirements.
We have heard of our Prime Minister failing in his duty to his people because he is under duress or under some pressure from the President of the United States, and when we hear remarks in this House unfriendly to the United States, I venture to say it is a very unfortunate thing. I believe it is playing the game of Germany. I think I should say this, I have no special knowledge, but I am of opinion from what I am told, that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States are working absolutely hand-in-hand, and are of the same mind. I do not think that there ought to be remarks made casting reflections upon President Wilson. All I have to say is that my dream of this settlement is a settlement that shall bring to the world the thing it needs most, namely, an instant, solid, and permanent peace. When the League of Nations is sneered at I say that every hon. Member in this House will live to realise that if there is no League of Nations there is no civilised world, and no prospect to which any of us can look forward with hope. War is a bad bargain; it is unsound from the beginning to the end. We have been engaged in a bad thing economically, and we have got to cut our lass. I would ask this House not to send the impression out from the House that the Government is failing in its duty because it is not collecting the utmost demands, but to stand by their effort to get all they can, and to realise that one of the greatest blessings that will come out of this War will be that the world will be taught that, whether victors or vanquished, war is a bad game and does not pay.

Lieutenant-Commander ASTBURY: I hope the House will bear with me in making a few remarks. I entirely disagree with the major part of what has fallen from the last hon. Member. It would be rather interesting to know if he put the views which he has set before us to-night before the electors at the election. We are in this position, that we gave two definite pledges to our Constituents last December. The first was indemnities from Germany, and the second the bringing to justice of the Kaiser and all his murderous gang. In the majority of cases huge majorities were obtained on these two points, and these two points alone. What authority
had we for giving those pledges We had the authority of the Prime Minister. He told the country that Germany should be made to pay the full cost of this War to the utmost limit of her capacity, and it was on that fact that we gave our pledges. Surely the Prime Minister is clever enough to have known when he made those speeches whether we could get any great amount if not the full amount of the cost of the War out of Germany or we could not. Turn back our minds to 1870 when Germany started her aggression against France. She stole from France her two provinces Alsace and Lorraine. She never asked France what she could pay. She demanded from France an indemnity of £250,000,000, and France had to pay that amount, though France was not the aggressor. Germany was the aggressor. This War has been the blackest page of devilry in the history of the world. No one in this country has the slightest sympathy with the German nation, either now or in fifty years, and if it takes Germany fifty years to pay off this debt I would make her do it. What would Germany have done to us if she was in the position in which we are now? Do you think for one moment she would have left us with a shirt to our back? One of her great commercial magnates, Herr Ballil, has said:
If we had won this War we would have occupied Paris and London. We would have dictated terms of peace in Buckingham Palace, and we would have annexed the whole Continent of Europe.
Speaking as a business man, I would not talk in any airy fashion of getting indemnities from Germany which she cannot pay. We know we cannot get blood from a stone. But I do believe that all this talk of starvation and Bolshevism in Germany is the old Teutonic cunning and is merely camouflaging the issue to get the Allies to let her down lightly. I cannot speak as an economist, but there is no doubt that Germany is a country of huge potential resources. It has huge potash mines and coal mines. We have not heard a word to-night about Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey. They have got unlimited wealth in their forests and in other ways. Besides that, Germany has got an industrial population of seventy millions, and every business man in this country knows that if she cannot pay the full cost of the War she can pay a very substantial amount. I may refer to the words which fell from my hon. Friend. I am sure that nothing which has been said in this House
could offend the United States. We are working with them to get the best terms possible out of Germany. But I do think that a grave error has been made in first of all discussing and bringing into the peace terms the question of the League of Nations before you have fixed your terms of peace with Germany. I feel, though I may be wrong, that, to a great extern, that has been the one question that has been dragging these peace terms along, and I believe that if the peace terms had been dictated to Germany first, then after we had settled with Germany we could have set up a League of Nations, because it is unthinkable at the present moment that we are going to let into this League of Nations a nation of brutes and blackguards. We will not let them in. We will have nothing to do with them until they have proved that they are fit again to come within the comity of civilised nations.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend so worded the Resolution as to enable me for a few moments to raise a question which, to my mind, is so equally urgent as this question of indemnities. That does not mean that I do not feel as strongly as he does with reference to that question but it does mean that when events move so fast in Paris this may well be the only opportunity I can have of bringing another matter to the attention of the Leader of the House. This afternoon I asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question with reference to an Allied mission that, so far as my information goes, has recently been visiting Bolshevist Russia. In his answer the hon. Gentleman informed me that he knew of no such mission. Knowing the frankness and courtesy with which the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs always answers hon. Members, I am quite confident that he had no such information. All I can do, therefore, is to put before the Leader of the House such information as I have, and to ask him, when he comes to reply, to give in a few sentences an answer to various questions which I propose to ask him.
The information that I have comes from several sources, but it bears out in material respects certain statements that during the last two or three days have been made in three or four London papers. They come to this, that two distinguished Americans, one a Mr. William Bullet, who, I understand, is attached to the
American Delegation in Paris, the other a certain Mr. Lincoln Steffins, a journalist, who is a friend of Trotsky, and last year, I understand, published an edition of Trotsky's works in the United States, have during the last few weeks visited Bolshevist Russia with American diplomatic passports, and have recently returned to Paris with an offer of peace, definite or indefinite, from the Lenin Government. If my information is correct, the terms of that offer are, roughly speaking, the following. First, Lenin offers on securing peace with the Allies to revoke the decree made by the Bolshevist Government for the repudiation of the foreign debts of Russia. In that connection I will only say that it seems to me to be the height of futility to consider an offer of the kind from the head of a Government which has plunged the country into such a state of bankruptcy that it cannot even meet its interest on its own internal loans. The second term which I understand Lenin offers is the cessation of official Bolshevist propaganda in all countries outside Russia. I would remind the Leader of the House that in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Lenin and Trotsky gave an undertaking exactly to that effect. They undertook to make no propaganda in Germany. Yet within two or three days of the signature of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty they were sending into Germany Bolshevist agents and Bolshevist money. The third term I understand is the withdrawal of Bolshevist forces from the border States of Russia. It seems to me that it would-be the height of unwisdom to enter into such conditions with a Government that at this present moment is being driven out of these border States by the force of arms. I am told—of course, the information at the disposal of private Members is very limited—that this offer is meeting with a favourable reception with certain highly-placed persons in Paris. If that be the case, let me say this. In Russia, at the present time, there is one of two choices to be made. In the first place, there is the Government of Admiral Kolchak—a Government which represents all the parties in Russia true to the Allies during the War. In the second place, there is the Government of the Bolshevists. I do not propose, even if I had the time, to say a word about the atrocities the Bolshevik Government have committed. I do not propose to say a word as to their treason to the Allies in connection with
the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. All I desire to say is that in three separate ways the Bolshevik Government have outraged to such an extent the law of nations that no civilised Power with self-respect can possibly entertain friendly relations with them. They have repudiated their national debts; they have launched an aggressive propaganda into every one of the Western countries of Europe; and they are held responsible for the murder of a British naval officer in the British Embassy at Petrograd. Since that time they have committed outrage after outrage on British men and women who have, unfortunately, found themselves at their mercy in Russia. I should have thought, in view of that, that no responsible person in Paris could for one moment contemplate entering into negotiations with such a Government. Even if the claim of loyalty did not carry weight, I venture to urge that no such action is possible on the ground of any expediency.
Only this evening I saw a telegram from Russia stating that on the Siberian Front Admiral Kolchak was making a most brilliant advance and that the Bolshevists were flying so fast that he could not maintain contact with them. At the same time there is news from Petrograd that serious risings have taken place there against the Lenin Government, and I would urge that it would be the height of folly at the very moment when the wave is turning in favour of Admiral Kolchak and when Lenin's Government is tottering to maintain any kind of relations with Lenin. I hope the Leader of the House, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell me that there is no such idea in the mind of any one of the Allied representatives in Paris. I hope that the rumours that are heard and the information I have received are wrong. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, when he comes to reply to the general Debate to assure the House that there is no intention whatever of entering into any relations or negotiations with these people. If the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me, I would also like to ask him two or three more detailed questions. In the first place, is my information correct that these Americans have recently been in Bolshevik Russia? Secondly, if it is the case, were our other Allies aware of this matter? I would further ask whether our delegates in Paris were aware of it, and whether our Foreign Office in London was aware of it? Had our French Allies any knowledge
about it? I am sure the Leader of the House will pardon me for speaking freely on this matter, but I feel that events are moving so quickly that one must speak frankly. I raise this question, not because I wish to make trouble at the Conference at Paris, but because I feel it is so serious that it is the duty of any Member to raise it at once, freely and frankly, and to ask the Leader of the House to give the assurance which I hope he will be able to give.

Rear-Admiral Sir WILLIAM W. HALL: It requires no words of mine to emphasise the speeches made by hon. Members in favour of getting from Germany the maximum amount of indemnity. But I would, with the permission of the House, refer to the subject discussed by the last speaker, the question of dealing with the Bolsheviks in Russia. I do not know if the information which has reached us is correct, but if one of the terms offered is that that they will cease their active propaganda, I can only say there can be but one reason for that, and that is that the active propaganda is already in progress. It is common knowledge that there is a movement in Great Britain which has been termed "Bolshevik." Whether it is so, time alone will prove. But behind that movement there is another. There has been since the General Election a distinct movement in favour of direct action, and the object of that movement has been to substitute a dictatorship for the constitutional assembly which we here represent. One of the tendencies is a system of economics which is directly opposed to the system to which this Kingdom is accustomed. It is a system of trading by communities instead of trading individually. I venture to think that this is a matter into which special inquiry ought to be made. There ought to be an investigation into the source, size, and actual progress made by this movement, which tends to substitute self-nominated dictators for the constitutional system. I have heard it said there is nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of—that one of the two systems is right. It is only fair to the people of Great Britain that they should have laid before them a full report of what is meant by direct action and its methods, and how it differs from the constitutional system we now stand for.

Mr. WALLACE: I shall only detain the House for a few minutes. I do not propose to go into the question of what Germany is able to pay, for it seems to me
that information on that point can only be got from the Front Bench, and it would be almost folly for me to attempt to discuss whether she ought to be made to pay £10,000,000,000 or £20,000,000,000. The election pledges have been referred to. I have found those up to now a little embarrassing. But I am glad that the Prime Minister gave us in this case a correct formula, which was that Germany ought to pay up to the measure of her capacity. With that I am content. At the present time, however, there is great uneasiness in the country regarding indemnities. What this House has a right to expect is that the Leader of the House should give us to-night a frank declaration of the Government's policy in this matter. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on that particular subject. There are various statements in the newspapers just now with regard to what we may or may not expect. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if there is a cold douche ahead of this country he ought to administer it to us to-night in the frankest possible way and let us know where we are.
I wish to raise one special point on the question of reparation. The House is aware that there are many British firms who hold property in Germany, and there are many German firms who hold property in this country. The amount of British property in Germany is something like £115,000,000, and the German property in this country was in the region of £140,000,000. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the final settlement these two particular sets of figures are to be worked off the one against the other? I have in mind at the present moment a very large business in Germany —I have no financial interest in Germany myself—and I am sure my right hon. Friend will be interested to know that that business was begun there in order to get over the German tariff walls. What I should like to know, and what many people in this country would like to know, is whether the property which is held here that has now been liquidated by the Government is to be treated as an offset against the amount of English property in Germany I would also ask whether the British subjects who are resident in Germany, who hold property there, and who invested their money in German undertakings, are to be reimbursed in any way; whether, for instance, there is to be any system of priority in dealing with
these various claims? Any information which the right hon. Gentleman can give on these matters will be welcomed not only by this House, but by a great many people in the country.

10.00 P. M.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I wish to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion. I am proud to think that the Adjournment of the House on this subject has been moved by a Member for a Lancashire Division, and as I am myself a Member of one of the Divisions of Lancashire I am proud to support him. There was an old saying years ago that what Lancashire thought to-day England would think to-morrow. If there is one part of the country that is keener on this subject than any other that part is Lancashire. There would be no alarm and no dissatisfaction in the country on this subject but for the fact leaking out, or at any rate coming out of the Peace Conference, that a Subcommittee or Sub-conference was sitting to ascertain the amount that Germany could pay. It does not-require even a statesman to make a statement that we are only going to get from Germany what she can pay, because it would be impossible to get from Germany or any other country more than she was able to pay. Consequently, a statement of that sort is quite unnecessary. But we are justified in presenting the bill for the full amount of the cost which this country and the Allies have incurred. It is because of this difference of procedure that the whole of the dissatisfaction and uneasiness in this House exist. If any Member of the House were to purchase, say, a piano for £100, is it likely the dealer would begin to think how much the purchaser was going to pay? He would, of course, send in his bill for £100, and he would follow it up with letters and representations in order to obtain payment of the full amount. That is the ordinary procedure which any business man would adopt. I suggest it is the only procedure we can adopt in dealing with Germany. There are hon. Members and other people who think that we are pressing for the payment of the full cost of this War on Germany because of our hatred of Germany. That is far from the truth. It is not that we hate Germany, but because we love justice. It is not only in the cause of this country and in the cause of our Allies, but also in the cause of freedom and justice that Germany
should be made to understand that she is indebted for the full cost of this War.
One hon. Member has suggested that we cannot carve out a piece of coal or of potash that will represent the full cost of this War, and that the value of the coal and of the potash only comes from its market value on the day of sale on the particular day it is required. That is exactly the policy we wish to pursue. We are convinced that it will take a good many years to pay off this indebtedness. We do not want the whole of Germany's coal or potash next week. We are quite prepared to wait for a considerable time until the full amount is paid. The longer we give Germany to pay her indebtedness, the better lesson it will be for all posterity. Unless we have made Germany contrite for her deeds this War has not been won, and the first condition of a contrite heart is restitution. Germany, unless she is contrite, I am afraid ought to endure further suffering. We ought to be prepared to show her that we are ready to receive her with open arms into the League of Nations, and to consider her as friendly as any other nation if she is truly contrite, but that until she has paid off her indebtedness we cannot look upon her in that light. If we put the case in that light before Germany she would see that it is to her advantage to set about paying this indemnity. I am pleased to have had this opportunity of addressing the House. This is my first attempt to speak in the House. With regard to the measures which the Government brought before the House during my short stay here, I feel that this matter is far more important than any of them. The Government are trying to appease the country by Socialistic legislation. We have a scheme for subsidising houses, and we have a scheme for nationalising railways and so forth. If there is one question at the last General Election which was more important than any other and which the working classes are more inteersted in, it is that Germany shall pay.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I should like to say a word or two first on the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me. When I heard of this I personally, like the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, knew nothing of it—the idea that some Embassy had been received from the Bolshevist Government, and that terms were to be made with them. I did not think there was a shadow
of foundation for it or I should have heard of it, and indeed the proposals which it is said are coming from the Lenin Government were so like those that were issued some time ago in the Wireless Press, about their readiness to pay off the debt and all the rest of it, that on the face of it it seemed improbable, for everyone knew that the object of the wireless message was not to make peace but to make propaganda in European countries by trying to convince the working classes that what these Imperialistic Governments were after was money and nothing else. I therefore thought there was no foundation for it, but I have to-day telephoned to the Prime Minister, and he also knows nothing about it, therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to say more on that subject.
As regards the subject which has occupied so much of our attention to-night, and upon which a number of most interesting speeches has been made, I shall have more to say, but I am afraid I shall not have much that is new to say. A good deal has been said about election pledges, and my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, much to my regret, said he had given a definite pledge that Germany would pay the whole cost of the War, and that if she did not he would have to resign, I do not know what influenced his mind in making that statement, but certainly it was not anything said by any member of His Majesty's Government. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion tonight quoted a speech of the Prime Minister, and quoted it quite correctly. He did not quote the whole of it. He quoted the substance of it. The one part he did not mention was the part which was the basis, I believe, of all the Prime Minister's speeches, and that was not that he would make Germany pay the whole cost of the War, but that we should exact from Germany whatever Germany was able to pay. Every time this subject has been raised I have had the feeling that I am more out of sympathy with Members who support the Government on this subject than on any other which has been raised. If that is due to any real difference of opinion it cannot be helped because everything I have said in this House is precisely what I have said during the election. I have not changed my view. Let me read for example part of a speech, which happened to be one of the last which I made before the election at Mile End, where a number of my hon. Friends who are now Members of the House were
present. What I said then was precisely what I thought then, what I think now, and what I have said on every occasion the subject has been raised in this House It was this:—
The first thing is to find out what she can pay, and we have already proposed to our Allies that an expert scientific committee should be appointed to examine into the amount which can be paid, not without injury to Germany. The country is responsible for its Government and for the crimes of its Government, and has a right to suffer for them. What this committee will do, if we have our way—
and we have had our way for that is what the Allies have done—
is to examine this question with precisely the same amount of scientific skill and energy as an accountant examining the books of a bankrupt to find out how much he could pay his creditors.
I have no doubt there were differences of opinion among members of His Majesty's Government, as among other people, as to what amount could be paid, and some were more sanguine than others. I was not amongst the most sanguine, and in this same speech I said this:—
Whatever amount we get, it would be holding out a hope, the fulfilment of which I cannot conceive, to suggest that Germany could pay our whole war debt. Whatever amount we get, the burden upon this country will only be met, in my opinion, by something in the nature of a different way of living and reduced expenditure.
So far, therefore, as I am concerned the view which I express in this House is precisely the view which I expressed during the election. That view has not changed. There is no change whatever up to this hour in the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this question. The intention still is to obtain, as part of the debt which Germany owes, whatever amount can be got from Germany. That is our case. But there are very great differences of opinion as to what that amount may be, and we have had an illustration of what these differences are in the Debate to-night. If there is a difference of opinion I think I can safely say that it would be an entire mistake to assume that the views of the British Government have been influenced in their desire to obtain anything which Germany can pay by any action on the part of the President of the United States. It would be unfair to that great country to suggest that our action was influenced by this reason, and I think it is right to say that if we are looking on the whole problem of the War, and the whole issue resulting
from the War, one of the aims which was set before the Government as our end in the War was to secure peace now and to secure peace in the time to come, and, personally, I believe unless as the result of this War we have in future the closest possible understanding, not only with France, with whom we have always in my time been more or less on a good footing, but with America, where there has been much misunderstanding, one of the best possible results from it will have been lost. With regard to the amount, our aim is to get everything that Germany can pay. There has been a great deal of discussion about the use of the words "reparation and indemnities." My view, and the view of the Government, has been that in any logical meaning of words there is no difference between the two, so long as you mean by indemnity the cost of the War. As far as I am concerned, I do not care in the least whether you call the amount reparation or indemnity, provided you get all you can get from our enemy. But there is a difference in the use of the words, or a possible difference, which has no relation whatever to our dealings with Germany, but has relation to our dealings among the Allies themselves. If you were to draw a hard and fast line between one kind of cost of the War and another the result might be that whatever was obtained from Germany would not be distributed in a way which was fair to the Allies as a whole and fair to this country in particular. Suppose one of us had owned a house which was destroyed by enemy action and at the same time had an unearned income of a certain amount. The damage to him, the civilian, would be of precisely the same kind, whether it took the form of the destruction of his house or of the payment for the rest of his life of an Income Tax of 6s. in the £ instead of 1s, as it was before the War. There is, therefore, no logical difference between the two.
I cannot, of course, discuss now any question as to the way in which whatever amount is received will be divided, but I would think it is obvious that the British Government, while recognising in many respects the greater suffering of some of our Allies and desirous of being fair to them, will feel also that in this question no representative of the British Government can fail to be just also to the British Empire as regards the disposal of this money. As to the Commission, I think my hon. Friend who spoke last rather sug-
gested there ought not to be any Commission at all to inquire into the amount, but that was clearly one of the statements made at the time of the election both by the Prime Minister and all his colleagues. You must in some intelligent way try to find out what amount can be paid. We have done that, and, as I have said, we have appointed this Commission. Up till yesterday it had not reported, and no decision had been taken as to the amount to be claimed. Up till yesterday that was the case. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieutenant-Colonel Lowther) knows it is an Inter-Allied Commission. The Commission up till yesterday had not reported, and I do not at this moment know what amount will be put forward by the Allies. But I would put this to the House. Unless you assume that our representatives in Paris are less interested in getting as much as any other Member, yon must also assume that they are as keen as the Members of this House are to get the largest amount possible, and that the subject is being examined from that point of view, and that whether the amount is small or great it is surely right for us to assume that it has been arrived at by careful examination of all the facts and fancies which have been put forward in this Debate to-night. It is not the British Government only that is interested in this question. Our Allies are equally interested in getting as much as possible, and it is necessary to assume that they are acting with a desire to get as large an amount as can be got.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman include America as one of the Allies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In this question America has not at all the same interest as we have. Of course America is one of the parties to the Peace Treaty. What we do will, I take it, be done by all, but our interests and that of France are more direct in this matter, and in what we are doing we are considering what can be got from Germany. What is the amount? There are two things which the House and anyone who discusses this subject have to keep quite clearly and distinctly in their minds in examining this question. The first is what amount Germany can pay in Germany—that is to say, exactly what amount of taxation or anything else she can be made to impose in order to obtain a tribute which will be paid to the Allies in Germany. But that is a very different thing from paying it to the
Allies. Everyone in this House knows that the question of transferring money from one country to another is one of the most difficult problems of finance. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, at one time—I have said this before in the House and there is no harm in saying it again—it looked as if within a very short time we would be at the end of all the ordinary methods of making purchases of munitions and the rest of it in America, and everyone who has given any thought to this subject at this moment knows that, terrible as our war debt as a whole is—and nobody doubts that, every one of my hon. Friends who have spoken pointing to the burden inflicted on this country by taxation—great as that may be, my own belief—and I believe it is shared by most people who have examined the subject—is that probably our external debt of a thousand millions that we owe at this moment outside this country will prove possibly a greater handicap upon our trade and a bigger obstacle to the recovery of our prosperity than the whole of the rest of the debt which has been incurred. It is necessary, therefore, to keep perfectly distinct the amount that can be paid by Germany in Germany and the amount that can be transferred to the Allies.
As regards the amount which can be collected in Germany, I really do not specially wish to argue this, because there seems to be a curious idea that if you have doubt about arithmetical figures you are friendly to the Boche. That is a mistake. We have got to look at this thing, not from the point of view of sentiment, but from the point of view of what is possible. My hon. and gallant Friend who introduced this Motion referred to a memorandum which he sent to me. I did not intend to refer to it. I wrote to him that I had read it with interest and that I had forwarded it to our representatives at the Conference. I have not heard whether it has been of any assistance to them. But I think it would be wise, as showing the difficulty of this problem, if I examined the amount for a moment. He first of all puts the total at £25,000,000,000, and his first method of meeting that is to say that the Germans have a debt of £8,000,000,000; they can certainly pay that, so we will wipe the £8,000,000,000 off the £25,000,000,000.

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: That is grossly unfair. I said that we could transfer the means by which they could
pay the interest on their debt to pay off the interest on our debt. That is a very different thing.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Not at all. It is precisely what I said.

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: It is not.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It is precisely what I said. I said he put the debt at £8,000,000,000 and that the Germans must obviously have the means to meet it, and therefore we can wipe oh this £3,000,000,000 from the £25,000,000,000. [Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHER: "Hear, hear!"] I am not misrepresenting my hon. Friend in the least; at all events, I am giving his arguments as I understand them. The House will understand that I am not now finding excuses for making the amount smaller than it is. As I remarked in my Budget statement a year ago with regard to the financial position of Germany, which I analysed as closely as I could, if British finance were in the same position as that of Germany I would consider that we were on the verge of bankruptcy. Therefore it does not follow that because they have a debt they are able to pay it. But it does follow that if you are deducting this £8,000,000,000 from the total of £25,000,000,000 you must take the means to meet that debt into account. My hon. Friend's next point is that Germany will have no Army now—

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: May I have the chance of answering this, be cause I particularly left out the explanation of these figures. I thought—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not be so susceptible to criticism. He must, like everybody else, harden his skin.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. and gallant Friend—

Mr. K. JONES: On a point of Order. I would like to inquire whether the Leader of the House is entitled to deal in detail with the memorandum which was not referred to at all by my hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Leader of the House invited the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale Division to send him a copy of the memorandum. That
memorandum was sent, and that memorandum has properly formed a basis of discussion.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Really, I do not think I am treating my hon. Friend unfairly. But let me go on—

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: May I answer this?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If the House would rather that I dropped this aspect of the matter I will do so.

Mr. K. JONES: Tell us what you are going to get?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is only an illustration of mine of the difficulty of dealing with the subject when you come to concrete statements. The next point made by my hon. and gallant Friend is that Germany has no large Army to pay for, and in those circumstances £40,000,000 ought to be enough to run the government of the country. That ii if she raised £200,000,000 before the War, there is £160,000,000 available now. That is rather difficult to believe if there is to be any government at all of any kind. When we remember that the civil expenditure before the War was £150,000,000, and I suggest that something will have to be found for pensions, etc., I think it is very evident that the civil government will not cost less than it cost before the War. I really will not go on with this examination. Now, I will really try to put the actual facts as I see them. First of all let me say, as regards the arguments of my hon. Friend (Mr. K. Jones), that I do not disagree with any of the suggestions he put forward. What is more, to my certain knowledge, every one of them has been carefully considered by the Commission, and whatever can be got from Germany will be the factors of which note has been taken. One of them was foreign securities. That has already been examined. At the time of the Armistice we made it one of the conditions that they were not to be allowed to be exported, and to whatever extent it is in our power we will get control of these securities. I know that very strong steps were taken to secure that this asset should not disappear. With all that I agree. But then the difficulty comes when you have to translate it into actual figures and amounts. We have got so used to talking in thousands of millions that we can hardly value what that means. There was
a suggestion that a large part of that £1,000,000,000 could be got by labour in the devastated countries. I do not think that anyone who uses that figure can have grasped what it means. If you pay £2 per week to a workman that amounts to £100 a year, and you can imagine how many million men it would take to get these large sums. When one thinks of getting labour on a scale of that kind is it not obvious that if there is unemployment, or a possibility of unemployment, in the country to which it is proposed to send that labour the people will say, "This is bread being taken out of our mouths." I do not believe that there is any country in Europe that would stand the presence of a large number of Germans doing work of this kind, which could be done by the people of that country, and I think it is the same all round.
When we are trying to bring up a large total and we are faced with difficulties of that kind, it is difficult to arrive at figures. One of the items mentioned was shipping. Obviously that is a proper subject for the Allies to secure. I think the value is something like £180,000,000, but I have not got the exact figures. It takes a great deal of that to arrive at these gigantic figures. If you take the first side of the problem, the amount that could be raised by taxation in Germany, I think that there is a limit to the possibility of internal taxation, and what that limit is requires an amount of examination with which only very expert people can deal. That is only half of our problem. Supposing we could get a very large indemnity raised in Germany, how is it going to be transferred to Allied countries? I most certainly should not argue in this way if I thought what I was doing would have any effect in reducing the claim which the nations will make upon Germany. I wish it to be as large as possible.
In what way can money, or the value of money, be transferred from one country to another? I know of only three ways. You can send it by gold or securities; you can send it by goods or services; or you can get it, to some extent, by credit in foreign countries. Beyond these there are no other methods. Will the House consider what the possibility of a transfer of large amounts in that way means? It can therefore in reality only be secured by the export of goods. How is that to be done on a scale which would enable us to get anything like the amount which we would
all like to get? I put this to the House: It can only be got by the surplus of German exports over German imports. There is no other way. Taking the average of five years before the War, there was a balance of £70,000,000, or about that, of German imports over German exports. The balance was the wrong way from this point of view. Of course, that included what are called invisible exports, such a the returns of shipping and foreign business. These, to a certain extent, will still remain, but if, as I hope, her ships are taken from Germany, and if, as we know—and I hope that this will continue, at least, in British Dominions—a great many of the businesses which Germany had abroad are taken away, these invisible exports will disappear. You are reduced, therefore, to what can be done by the balance of exports over imports.

Mr. MACMASTER: How did the French pay the indemnity of £200,000,000?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows that as well as I do. The amount of £200,000,000 or thereabouts was paid partly in gold and partly in credit, extending over a certain length of time, and I am going to deal with credit in this connection too. It can only in the long run be paid for by exportation. How is it possible on a balance of exportation to pay anything like the amount which is involved in talking of paying our War Debt? Before the War the balance wag the other way. In addition to that, the total exports from Germany before the War were about £500,000,000. Therefore, to pay a tribute of £500,000,000 you have to change a surplus the wrong way into a surplus the right way to the extent of the whole of the exports of Germany before the War. That is difficult, and in facing that difficulty you have to remember that this country at least will not want to receive these goods if they are in a form which will compete with our own productions and deprive our own workpeople of employment. But that is not the whole of the difficulty. I recognise that what Germany may pay to us is not restricted to the exports of Germany direct to us. If she exports to Russia or any other country, the nature of the world's exchange is such that it can come to us. It is not therefore a question of what she exports directly to this country, but it must be exports to some country.
The other method of getting the money transferred is by credit. That is a real method, and it might last a long time—at all events, that is my view. Take an illustration. For something like a generation America were in that position. She was unable to export anything like enough to pay for the capital which we sent for the development of her country. That was sent largely from this country. America at that time could not pay for it by exports; she paid for it by credit; and it extended over many years. The credit was possible be cause the people who sent the money to build her railways believed that ultimately America would be able to pay in a form that could be transferable. They were willing to give that credit and buy the rail way securities. That is possible in Germany too, but it is only possible if the amount is not so enormous as to make it plain that at no time will Germany be able to transfer the amount to other countries. I put before the House my views of the difficulties. They are very familiar to everyone who has been studying the question. It has been the duty of our experts to try to get over these difficulties, and they have been spending weeks in going into every conceivable method by which Germany can be made to pay what she ought. I do not know, as I say, what the amount will be. I hope it will be an amount well worth having, and I might say that I never heard anything more unjust in a way than the reference of my hon. Friend to Lord Cunliffe. I do not know what Lord Cunliffe thinks now, but I know he went to that Conference in the belief that Germany could pay a very large part of the bill.

Mr. K. JONES: Do you suggest that Lord Cunliffe is the distinguished authority?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no. It may be my hon. Friend for all I know. I do not know who is the distinguished authority. I quite realise that in dealing with a complicated economic subject like this it is impossible to grapple with it in a speech such as I have delivered. I have simply tried to put before the House considerations that have been in my mind from the beginning, and which considerations prevented me at the election, or at any other time, holding out the hope that Germany would be able to pay anything like the whole cost of the War. That is the position. I put this to the House. This sub-
ject is being examined. The French and the Italians in Paris have just as much interest in getting the largest possible amount as any of us. You have got to trust to somebody and to believe that they are examining this in the interest of this country as much as any hon. Member, and I am prepared to say that when the amount is announced, whether it is smaller or larger than I hoped, I will be prepared, in my own mind, to say that they are in a better position to judge of the matter than I am, and I shall assume they have got at the correct amount.
I should like to say something else before I sit down. This is not the moment to go into a complicated question connected with the peace Treaty. At the election one of the things that were pointed out by the Prime Minister and by myself so far as I know was that in the nature of the case the Peace Treaty could not be discussed either on the platform or in the House of Commons. In the nature of the case that is impossible and what we asked the country to do was to return to power a Government which they would trust to act for them and in their interests at the Peace Conference. That was the pledge. Whether or not, when the result of the Treaty is known, it satisfies my hon. Friend or the country I do not know, but at least I am sure that the Government in dealing with it are acting in what they believe is the best interest of this country, and for no other reason. I do not ask the House to give us credit for acting in that way, and to believe that, whether our arithmetic is right or wrong, our feelings and sentiments on this subject are just as strong as those of any hon. Member who has spoken, and if we cannot come to the same conclusions it is simply because our minds will not allow us. Let me conclude by saying this. I said that on this subject I seemed to be out of sympathy with some of my hon. Friends. I do not think it is my fault. I am perfectly sure my desires are precisely the same as theirs. I remember reading in one of Carlyle's works, I forget which, he was describing a very bitter controversy about something—I think it was probably religion—and he said the protagonists-were shouting at each other, "God confound you for your theory of irregular verbs." In this matter there is no difference of principle, and I hope my Friends neither outwardly, nor in their hearts, will be inclined to say, "God confound you and your rotten arithmetic."

Brigadier-General CROFT: The speech to which we have just listened is rather a serious warning, in that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to let the country down gently in regard to what is going to happen when we hear the results of the Peace Conference. He made a very great deal of the fact that the British Government was not alone interested in this matter, and that the other Allies have also good reason to make their claims with equal strength as our delegates. There is a feeling, not only in this country, but throughout the British Empire, that our delegates do not press their claims sufficiently, having regard to the position of the British Empire on the day that the Armistice was signed. We all know the right hon. Gentleman's modesty in regard to this question, and we feel that our Government is too modest and too ready to agree with President Wilson in whatever he may suggest at the Peace Conference. The British Empire ended up this War with the greatest military power in the field, with a naval power which admittedly alone made victory in this War possible, and in addition to that we were the financial power which alone had sustained the Allies during the War. Therefore our delegates went to the Peace Conference in such a position that they could truly declare that the British Empire had a greater claim than any other Power in the consideration of peace terms. Our complaint is chat the delegates of the British Empire at Paris have been too ready to listen to a Power for which we have the greatest feelings of friendship and respect, but who has not borne the burden and heat of the day, and has not suffered appalling sacrifices which have been those of the British Empire. The right hon. Gentleman said that our action at Paris was not influenced by President Wilson. I would remind him of the fourteen points. Fourteen points were uttered by President Wilson at a time when apparently he imagined that it was doubtful if there was going to be any certain victory one way or the other in this War. President Wilson definitely stated that it was not desirable that there should be a definite result in the War. He wanted peace without victory, and he uttered these fourteen points, and they were rather too readily agreed to by some right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. But the people of the country at the election showed perfectly plainly that they "were not bound by these fourteen
points and they did not regard them as commandments that were inviolable simply because they had been uttered by a distinguished Ally. On this question of indemnities the whole difficulty can be divided into two points. First, there is a school which says that Germany is unable to pay; and there is another school which says that such payments, even if they are possible, would react against ourselves, and, therefore, would be no use to the British Empire. The hon. Member who sits for the Eye Division of Suffiolk—although he might sit for Wurtemburg or Bavaria—and who said that we must not speak in this way because it would be a terrible thing if we had any ill-feeling in Germany after the War.
We are here this evening to demand justice for our people, and whatever the financiers may say, whatever the international gentlemen who control our affairs may say and advise our Ministers, it stands to reason that as you are building your League of Nations, that if the criminals of this War are allowed to emerge unpunished, then the League of Nations cannot be a real thing in days to come. With regard to the arguments which have been put forward, the first is that Germany is unable to pay. I think that is easily disposed of. I do not think there are many Members of this House who doubt Germany's capacity to-pay. The right hon. Gentleman is aware—indeed, he mentioned the fact this afternoon—that the £8,000,000,000 debt of Germany has been spent within the Central Empires, while at the same time our expenditure has been very largely dispersed. The consequence is that Germany emerges from this War comparatively stronger than we do in that sense. In 1915 Dr. Hellferich stated in Germany that the savings of Germany before the War were £400,000,000 a year. To this you can add the savings on naval and military expenditure in Germany. I regret I did not hear the figure given earlier, but I think it was roughly £80,000,000 sterling. By economising, just as we have been taught to economise in this country, it stands to reason that Germany could save another £120,000,000 a year. This makes a total of £600,000,000 sterling a year at present values.
I think it is not on outside estimate if I say that thirty years hence that will be a value of something like £900,000,000 a year. If we take two-thirds of that, and leave Germany one-third, with the incen-
tive to work, without which one realises that she cannot go on, I think it is a very substantial figure. If we add to that £150,000,000 sterling, on the same basis, taking it as the proportion of Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, it is not unreasonable to assume that that would come to the very respectable figure of £750,000,000 sterling a year. I submit with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman that that is sufficient to pay the interest and the sinking fund of the debt which we are likely to get year by year. If that is not sufficient, there is another means which has not been discussed. That is, that you should collect an export duty from all German manufactures leaving the German and the Central Empires, of 20 per cent., which would, at pre-war figures, bring into your coffers £120,000,000. I believe that these items, added together, are sufficient to pay the interest and the sinking fund of a reasonable contribution of indemnities from Germany. I believe really the right hon. Gentleman admits the capacity of Germany to pay. His real difficulty is how that payment is to be transferred to the Allies. But before I leave that point may I quote, in order to remind the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister's statement in the election, which rather varies from the replies which the right hon. Gentleman has given to us in recent weeks. On 12th December, the Prime Minister made a long and interesting speech, from which I do not propose to quote at length. He said:
Let me summarise. First, as far as justice is concerned, we have an absolute right to demand the whole cost of the War from Germany.
The second is:
We propose to demand the whole cost of the War.
The third is a side issue I need not go into. The fourth is:
The Committee appointed by the British Cabinet believes it can be done.
The fifth is:
Our demands, whatever they are, must come in front of the German war debt—
which supports the view of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel C. Lowther). The Prime Minister at that time took a different point of view, and was advised differently from what he is at the present moment. That is one of the reasons why we are uneasy as to what is going on, because that was an emphatic statement. Our only fear is that in the meantime the international financiers, the men who are
Imperial bankers, and whose interests lie entirely in keeping Germany in as good a state of prosperity as she was before, are whispering in his ear. The manner in which we must collect these payments, I frankly admit, is a far more difficult subject. That is the really difficult question. Obviously, the British Empire ought to demand, as a first contribution, £500,000,000 for the mercantile shipping illegally sunk by Germany. That is a contribution on account. We have got to face the fact—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that the principal amount of this payment has got to be made in goods. That is obvious to anyone. But the pundits of finance warn us that this means flooding our country with manufactured goods. My answer is, that we will only take such goods in payment as we require, and though there are the difficulties of competition this country, from whatever point of view we look at it, benefits if we get any kind of goods for nothing. The country is enriched thereby. From coal, potash, timber, iron ores, iron bars, from all the unhealthy and dangerous trades, those of us who have discussed this matter believe we could in this country collect at least £150,000,000 to £200,000,000 a year as interest on the amount of the indemnity due to ourselves. We believe that that would be sufficient to pay sinking fund and interest. But you must have security in addition to this, and we submit that coal and potash provide that security. The right hon. Gentleman, the other night, laughed at the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds who had quoted some figures with regard to German coal and potash. But the right hon. Gentleman should remember that these were German estimates which were generally accepted in Germany, not as the wealth of the coal and potash mines working at the moment, but as the potential ultimate value of these minerals in Germany. Even if the German estimate were not accepted by our Chancellor of the Exchequer let him halve it, and that would be quite sufficient to provide ample security for the ultimate payment of the indemnity from Germany. The house of Rothschild, I believe I am right in saying, arranged for the 4 per cent. loan to Spain, and as security received the quicksilver mines not far from Madrid. We are in precisely that same position. We ask for security, namely, coal and potash, that ultimately—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH (SALARIES AND EXPENSES).

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of salaries, remuneration, and expenses payable under any Act of the present Session, to establish a Scottish Board of Health to exercise powers with respect to Health and Local Government in Scotland (King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND—SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS).

Committee to consider of authorising the payment into the Education (Scotland) Fund, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such sums as may become payable thereto in pursuance of any Act of the present Session and to make further provision for superannuation and other allowances to teachers in Scotland (King's Recommendation signified)— To-morrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Adjourned at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.